Turn coordinator? How dare they! [Archive]

February 14th 13, 01:46 AM

On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 7:11:32 PM UTC-5, Brad wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 3:26:31 PM UTC-8, wrote: > On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 10:50:37 AM UTC-5, AGL wrote: > > > > since you "don't do competition", how do you know? . . . by helping at contests. > > > > The people I've enjoyed at contests are one of the biggest reasons why I've been flying contests for the last 36 years. > > I've encountered many more of the A*** types on RAS in the last year than in all the contests I've flown. > > Obviously a different experience > > UH Hank, I enjoyed flying the R8 contest last year. I enjoyed hanging out and flying with the folks I met, it was a lot of fun. I choose not to spend the dwindling time or finances available to me on contests, not because I am an asshole, but because I choose other aspects of soaring to participate in. Brad

Cool- you're maxing your fun ticket usage which is what it really is all about.
I just get crazy when people dump on competition, or OLC, or whatever. There are lots of ways to have fun and none of them get better by dumping on the other guy.
UH

Brad[_2_]

February 14th 13, 01:46 AM

[email protected]

February 14th 13, 02:07 AM

On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 8:27:06 AM UTC-6, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> No way this potential cheater (why else would he have a TC?) would reveal himself. :-)

I have a great idea for next year. Special contest for Sean and his buddies.. IGC club class only. Grand Prix rules, with no finish minimum, with full IGC protocols -- jury, stewards and all. Full panel IFR (artificial horizon) required. Flarm units with leech mode enabled required. The new DeLorme every minute tracker required, and each pilot's "team captain" will radio up other pilot's positions and weather from ground control. Units: Metric. Language: Only Norwegian and Polish allowed -- need to practice up for the WGC, guys!

(Sorry, can't seem to wait for April 1!)

Richard Walters

February 14th 13, 03:21 AM

At 01:44 13 February 2013, Sean F F2 wrote:
>I noticed the fancy panel photo being used by the SSA to entice
people to
>t=
>ry soaring (home page of letsgogliding.com) features a BIG, FAT
GYRO
>DRIVEN=
> turn coordinator. I can't believe this has been allowed to remain
for
>nea=
>rly a year as it is obviously blasphemy! I'll give it 24 hours
before
>this=
> is removed.
>
>Just sayin.....

Just to lighten the midwinter mood of our gentleman's ( and
woman's) sport. My dad was crewing the WGC in Sweden in 1950
and brought back a 2- 1/4" turn and bank. After he sold his LK he
loaned it to Jack Bamberg who installed it in his BG-12. Shortly
thereafter Jack landed in a sewer treatment pond. It has not
worked quite the same since.

Richard Walters
longing for the days of Joe Emons, Ben Greene, Gren Siebels and
their ilk.

Richard Walters

February 14th 13, 03:21 AM

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

February 14th 13, 03:36 AM

On 2/12/2013 11:50 PM, waremark wrote:
> Nice Ash 26E panel. Does it belong to someone here?
>
It's an incredible amount of instruments in a panel that size. My 26E
panel is not as cleverly laid out.

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

Darryl Ramm

February 14th 13, 05:33 AM

On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 7:36:38 PM UTC-8, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On 2/12/2013 11:50 PM, waremark wrote:
>
> > Nice Ash 26E panel. Does it belong to someone here?
>
> >
>
> It's an incredible amount of instruments in a panel that size. My 26E
>
> panel is not as cleverly laid out.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
>
> email me)

Oh geez, anohter typical motorglider **** with a stuffed panel... Oh wait, that's mine.

Yes it is my ASH-26E panel, a photo from a few years ago taken in the Kanab Utah area when when flying from Parowan down to the Grand Canyon. I'd just had the '26 for a short while and this was the first trip to Utah with it. Climbing up through 13,000', vario around 9-10 knots, averager at 7.5, a pretty weak Utah thermal...

The 26E panel is a bit funky to lay things out on, I really wanted the full size altimeter, ASI, etc. and things are really crowded as a result. Several other owners have similar layout.

The Trutrak is in the panel because of prior experiences running into smoke in the Parowan Area in my DG-303. And I've flown one contest with the ASH-26E where the T&B was disabled/inop to the CD's satisfaction. I'm not even sure why it is switched on in this photo.

Not that its a big thing, but this is the second time this photo has been used publicly by others without asking me, it is not in the public domain. And I'm not sure I'd use that photo to help portray what gliding is about.

Darryl

Brad[_2_]

February 14th 13, 06:05 AM

On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 5:24:45 PM UTC-8, AGL wrote:
> SNIP
>
>
>
> > I choose not to spend the dwindling time or finances available to me on contests, not because I am an asshole, but because I choose other aspects of soaring to participate in.
>
>
>
> Clarification is required because there are two conversations going on:
>
>
>
> http://www.simplypsychology.org/personality-a.html
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_A_and_Type_B_personality_theory
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> (A at work, B at the field)

Thanks for the links. I think the best soaring pilots are a mix of A and B personalities, with a sprinkle of A*** thrown in here and there! Myself certainly not lacking bits of the latter trait mentioned......;)

As for the "need" for a TC..........a needle ball Wendezeiger helped let me down through wave coupled clouds years ago, and a few years ago the hole I was spiraling down thru almost closed and I had no TC in the panel. I now have a Tru-Trak and if need be, it will save my life life if caught in similar circumstances. Or, at least I'll be concentrating on IT rather than wishing I ignored the guys who said I'd never need it.

Brad

Brad

Peter Higgs

February 14th 13, 11:49 AM

It's an AI.... Attitude Indicator, sometimes called an Artificial
Horizon.

A Turn Coordinator has a slip ball, sometimes called a Turn and Bank, or
Turn and Slip indicator. It allows you to do Rate One Coordinated Turns.
!

Jim White[_3_]

February 14th 13, 01:38 PM

At 23:26 13 February 2013, wrote:
>On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 10:50:37 AM UTC-5, AGL wrote:
>> > since you "don't do competition", how do you know? . . . by helping
at
>contests.
>
>The people I've enjoyed at contests are one of the biggest reasons why
I've
>been flying contests for the last 36 years.
>I've encountered many more of the A*** types on RAS in the last year than
>in all the contests I've flown.
>Obviously a different experience
>UH
>
Please tell us more about the people you have 'enjoyed'!

Darryl Ramm

February 14th 13, 02:26 PM

Bzzzt No. This is a TruTrack "Pictorial Turn and Bank" widely used worldwide in gliders.

It *is* a turn coordinator, it is *not* an AI. There is no pitch information provided, there is a slip/skid ball in the display for the exact reason mentioned.

Darryl

Dan Marotta

February 14th 13, 04:32 PM

I find that the slip ball on my TruTrak doesn't work worth a crap. Either
that, or I'm extremely coordinated! :)

I have had a J-8 attitude indicator and static inverter (needs 400 Hz, ya
know) since the mid-70s. Maybe I should install that in place of my giant
PZL mechanical vario. The weight of the thing would probably warp my panel
and the power requirements would certainly drain my batteries (3 of them) in
under an hour.

Now I just need to find a reasonably priced INS and see if I can squeeze it
into the space where my gear retracts. I can fly wheel down...

"Jim White" > wrote in message
...
> At 23:26 13 February 2013, wrote:
>>On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 10:50:37 AM UTC-5, AGL wrote:
>>> > since you "don't do competition", how do you know? . . . by helping
> at
>>contests.
>>
>>The people I've enjoyed at contests are one of the biggest reasons why
> I've
>>been flying contests for the last 36 years.
>>I've encountered many more of the A*** types on RAS in the last year than
>>in all the contests I've flown.
>>Obviously a different experience
>>UH
>>
> Please tell us more about the people you have 'enjoyed'!
>

[email protected]

February 14th 13, 05:03 PM

> I have a great idea for next year. Special contest for Sean and his buddies. IGC club class only. Grand Prix rules, with no finish minimum, with full IGC protocols -- jury, stewards and all. Full panel IFR (artificial horizon) required. Flarm units with leech mode enabled required. The new DeLorme every minute tracker required, and each pilot's "team captain" will radio up other pilot's positions and weather from ground control. Units: Metric. Language: Only Norwegian and Polish allowed -- need to practice up for the WGC, guys!
>
>
>
> (Sorry, can't seem to wait for April 1!)

Wow, that's a sensational picture you paint. You might like this idea better? How about eliminating the risky cross country aspect of sailplane racing? Instead have a national spot landing contest? No need for jury, stewards and all. We can use the English language.

(Can't wait for April 1st too)

HA

[email protected]

February 14th 13, 05:34 PM

>
> Wow, that's a sensational picture you paint. You might like this idea better? How about eliminating the risky cross country aspect of sailplane racing? Instead have a national spot landing contest? No need for jury, stewards and all. We can use the English language.

>
> (Can't wait for April 1st too)
>
> HA

Hmm. Those landings sound pretty dangerous to me. Especially those desperate pilots trying to nail the spot. They might scratch the gel coat under the nose. Better to make the "spot" 500 feet up over the middle of the airport, and demonstrate a "landing" through GPS.

There are many reasons I can't wait for April 1st
BB

[email protected]

February 14th 13, 06:46 PM

> I have a great idea for next year. Special contest for Sean and his buddies. IGC club class only. Grand Prix rules, with no finish minimum, with full IGC protocols -- jury, stewards and all. Full panel IFR (artificial horizon) required. Flarm units with leech mode enabled required. The new DeLorme every minute tracker required, and each pilot's "team captain" will radio up other pilot's positions and weather from ground control. Units: Metric. Language: Only Norwegian and Polish allowed -- need to practice up for the WGC, guys!

While Obviously a joke-post... I think... Although... I do speak a little Norwegian so that should help me...

Aren't we headed the way of unlimited information from whatever source we want (Flamr-radar, teammates, ground crew as team captains, ads-b weather, etc., etc.) because bans on the "proliferation of technology" are ultimately unenforceable except by peer pressure and "gentlemanly conduct"?

And why the dig at IGC Club Class? Your going to get your *******ized US "Club Class"

And now the GP format is crazy and unsafe...

Flame suit set to full.

Somewhat snarkily,
EY

Sean F (F2)

February 15th 13, 04:01 AM

lol!

On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 9:07:57 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 8:27:06 AM UTC-6, Sean F (F2) wrote:
>
> > No way this potential cheater (why else would he have a TC?) would reveal himself. :-)
>
>
>
> I have a great idea for next year. Special contest for Sean and his buddies. IGC club class only. Grand Prix rules, with no finish minimum, with full IGC protocols -- jury, stewards and all. Full panel IFR (artificial horizon) required. Flarm units with leech mode enabled required. The new DeLorme every minute tracker required, and each pilot's "team captain" will radio up other pilot's positions and weather from ground control. Units: Metric. Language: Only Norwegian and Polish allowed -- need to practice up for the WGC, guys!
>
>
>
> (Sorry, can't seem to wait for April 1!)

[email protected]

February 19th 13, 01:23 PM

On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 10:50:37 AM UTC-5, AGL wrote:
> > since you "don't do competition", how do you know?
>
>
>
> . . . by helping at contests.

if you're going to help, you might as well fly at them. you're obviously not going to the right contests. i've always had a more than pleasant experience... even when i land out.

[email protected]

February 19th 13, 10:18 PM

Kona mi seier, for aa vaere verdenklasse, ein skulle ha god forstaaelse i det norske maal.Ho seier ogsaa at konkoranse-flyging var kjekkare paa same tid me var i laering.

AH

Don Johnstone[_4_]

February 20th 13, 02:05 AM

At 13:23 19 February 2013, wrote:
>On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 10:50:37 AM UTC-5, AGL wrote:
>> > since you "don't do competition", how do you know?
>>
>>
>>
>> . . . by helping at contests.
>
>
>if you're going to help, you might as well fly at them. you're obviously
>not going to the right contests. i've always had a more than pleasant
>experience... even when i land out.
>
If you want an artificial horizon get an iPhone. Carrying a mobile phone is
not illegal is it?

Sean F (F2)

February 20th 13, 10:21 PM

Oh yes, Mobile phones are absolutely cardinal sins to the SSA and US Rules Team.

We are all assumed guilty until proven innocent here. The installation of an AH is absolute admission of your intention to cheat.

It has no safety purpose other than to cloud fly and cheat your opponents of course.

This is an old discussion but I do enjoy the chance to discuss the rational again.

It is highly enforceable in an alternate universe somewhere. Here we just make a stink about it but do not enforce it at all other than making software developers waste time.

:-)

kirk.stant

February 21st 13, 10:09 AM

On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 11:21:06 PM UTC+1, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> Oh yes, Mobile phones are absolutely cardinal sins to the SSA and US Rules Team.
>
>
>
> We are all assumed guilty until proven innocent here. The installation of an AH is absolute admission of your intention to cheat.
>
>
>
> It has no safety purpose other than to cloud fly and cheat your opponents of course.
>
>
>
> This is an old discussion but I do enjoy the chance to discuss the rational again.
>
>
>
> It is highly enforceable in an alternate universe somewhere. Here we just make a stink about it but do not enforce it at all other than making software developers waste time.
>
>
>
> :-)

Has anyone actually tried using a straight iPhone (no external sensors) as an attitude indicator? Good luck and dibs on your stereo...

Kirk
66

Sean F (F2)

February 21st 13, 02:26 PM

There have been some thoroughly hilarious discussions on this topic in the past year or so:

https://groups.google.com/forum/m/?fromgroups#!search/rules$20committee$20gyro/rec.aviation.soaring/1gM3nGZamb4

https://groups.google.com/forum/m/?fromgroups#!search/rules$20committee$20gyro/rec.aviation.soaring/47SxSc-if7M (LX has an AH that actually works but it was not banned in any way, nor the software producer asked to create a version incapable of accessing the AH module data! Unreal! Yes, I know!!!

https://groups.google.com/forum/m/?fromgroups#!search/rules$20committee$20gyro/rec.aviation.soaring/7RXaK9m8TTU

https://groups.google.com/forum/m/?fromgroups#!search/rules$20committee$20gyro/rec.aviation.soaring/R5IKbGMIX0w

Serious question for the RC: Is this illegal? http://www.bellross.com/us/collections/aviation/br_01/

Since an Iphone or Android phone with XC Soar are considered illegal (even though it is useless as a flying instrument), what about my watch? Is this also illegal? I just want to be sure before I close the canopy in competition this summer ;-)!

Sean
F2

Sean F (F2)

February 21st 13, 02:33 PM

Need clarification from the RC:

Are any of the following devices illegal?

http://www.mattbaily.ca/blog/2012/08/10/bell-ross-turn-coordinator/

http://scibilitymedia.com/bell-ross-unveils-flight-instrument-inspired-watches-421

http://www.ablogtowatch.com/bell-ross-br-01-horizon-altimeter-turn-coordinator-watches-hands-on/

http://www.watchmundi.com/2012/05/30/bell-ross-br-01-horizon-br-01-altimeter-br-01-turn-coordinator/

http://montre24.com/news/2012-04-20/1272/

Sean

Sean F (F2)

February 21st 13, 02:34 PM

Has this been banned yet?

http://i-hud.com

Sean

Sean F (F2)

February 21st 13, 02:41 PM

Same hardware as LX NAV's AH: http://www.aviation.levil.com/AHRS.htm, but instead of needed a 5-10k LX unit, your iPhone will work!
http://www.aviation.levil.com/AHRS.htm

How do we enforce the no cell phone rule again? Why do we have it again?

Sean

[email protected]

February 21st 13, 02:49 PM

On Thursday, February 21, 2013 8:41:10 AM UTC-6, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> Same hardware as LX NAV's AH: http://www.aviation.levil.com/AHRS.htm, but instead of needed a 5-10k LX unit, your iPhone will work!
>
> http://www.aviation.levil.com/AHRS.htm
>
>
>
> How do we enforce the no cell phone rule again? Why do we have it again?
>
>
>
> Sean

Please Sean, do us all a favor, take your medication. Here you go flying off the handle again. Will this never end? This has been discussed ad nauseam about a year ago.

Sean F (F2)

February 21st 13, 03:50 PM

Hypocrisy: the practice of professing standards, beliefs, etc., contrary to one's real character or actual behaviour, esp the pretence of virtue and piety

Sean F (F2)

February 21st 13, 03:51 PM

Herb,

Who exactly are you speaking for? Who is "all of us?" Please expound.

Are you, perhaps, overstating your moral authority here?

Is my watch illegal? Is Bell and Ross being contacted?

Best,

Sean

[email protected]

February 21st 13, 05:03 PM

On Thursday, February 21, 2013 9:51:55 AM UTC-6, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> Herb,
>
>
>
> Who exactly are you speaking for? Who is "all of us?" Please expound.
>
>
>
> Are you, perhaps, overstating your moral authority here?
>
>
>
> Is my watch illegal? Is Bell and Ross being contacted?
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Sean

Well, Herb certainly is speaking for me too here...

The answer to all your questions is, if you have an instrument, watch, fuzzy dice (pendulum effect), plastic Jesus (prayer), or whatever that has some artificial horizon capability, talk to your CD about it ahead of time, and, guided by the rules, you and he -- well, anyone else and he -- will come to a reasonable understanding.

Everyone else is complaining the rules are too complex, and we're certainly not about to make them much worse by addressing all this, implementing cockpit inspections, or such. Don't fix what ain't broke. OTOH, there is a history of people going into clouds who should not, so full IFR panels will not be allowed in contests.

End. I hope.

John Cochrane

waremark

February 21st 13, 05:58 PM

Why not allow people to go into clouds like we Brits do?

Luke Szczepaniak

February 21st 13, 06:40 PM

On 02/21/2013 12:03 PM, wrote:
> On Thursday, February 21, 2013 9:51:55 AM UTC-6, Sean F (F2) wrote:
>> Herb,
>>
>>
>>
>> Who exactly are you speaking for? Who is "all of us?" Please expound.
>>
>>
>>
>> Are you, perhaps, overstating your moral authority here?
>>
>>
>>
>> Is my watch illegal? Is Bell and Ross being contacted?
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>>
>> Sean
>
> Well, Herb certainly is speaking for me too here...
>
> The answer to all your questions is, if you have an instrument, watch, fuzzy dice (pendulum effect), plastic Jesus (prayer), or whatever that has some artificial horizon capability, talk to your CD about it ahead of time, and, guided by the rules, you and he -- well, anyone else and he -- will come to a reasonable understanding.
>
> Everyone else is complaining the rules are too complex, and we're certainly not about to make them much worse by addressing all this, implementing cockpit inspections, or such. Don't fix what ain't broke. OTOH, there is a history of people going into clouds who should not, so full IFR panels will not be allowed in contests.
>
> End. I hope.
>
> John Cochrane
>

John I'll bite. A good way to make things simple would be to re-word
the rule to a simple statement; "Cloud Flying Prohibited", period, end
of story. Someone who intends to cheat will break the rules anyway!

Only 60 days left to Perry :)
Luke

Sean F (F2)

February 21st 13, 06:47 PM

Luke: Its pure genius (and also illegal per the FARs). But that means nothing. We need MORE RULES! Next up: Stealth Mode!

Don Johnstone[_4_]

February 21st 13, 09:57 PM

At 22:21 20 February 2013, Sean F F2 wrote:
>Oh yes, Mobile phones are absolutely cardinal sins to the SSA and US
Rules
>Team.
>
>We are all assumed guilty until proven innocent here. The installation
of
>an AH is absolute admission of your intention to cheat.
>
>It has no safety purpose other than to cloud fly and cheat your opponents
>of course.
>
>This is an old discussion but I do enjoy the chance to discuss the
rational
>again.
>
>It is highly enforceable in an alternate universe somewhere. Here we
just
>make a stink about it but do not enforce it at all other than making
>software developers waste time.
>
>:-)
>

Given that an iPhone is very small and easily concealed how does the SSA
get round the 4th amendment. Are they exempt?

[email protected]

February 21st 13, 11:56 PM

On Thursday, February 21, 2013 11:58:11 AM UTC-6, waremark wrote:
> Why not allow people to go into clouds like we Brits do?

In the US all IFR flying requires a (power) IFR rating, current, and we are almost all class E so requires ATC clearance. With a few exceptions of dedicated wave flyers in ca, glider flying in the US is all VFR.

Enjoy one bit of freedom you have in the UK!

John Cochrane

Richard Walters

February 22nd 13, 03:52 AM

At 21:57 21 February 2013, Don Johnstone wrote:
>At 22:21 20 February 2013, Sean F F2 wrote:
>>Oh yes, Mobile phones are absolutely cardinal sins to the
SSA and US
>Rules
>>Team.
>>
>>We are all assumed guilty until proven innocent here. The
installation
>of
>>an AH is absolute admission of your intention to cheat.
>>It has no safety purpose other than to cloud fly and cheat
your opponents
>>of course.
>Given that an iPhone is very small and easily concealed how
does the SSA
>get round the 4th amendment. Are they exempt?
>
>

Dan and Sean,
In what was formerly a gentlemen and women's sport, we would
ask that cell phones be stored out of reach during flight. No
fourth amendment rights were harmed and a fair competition
could result.
Richard Walters
Regionals and Nationals CD

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

February 22nd 13, 04:32 AM

On 2/21/2013 6:41 AM, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> Same hardware as LX NAV's AH:
> http://www.aviation.levil.com/AHRS.htm, but instead of needed a 5-10k
> LX unit, your iPhone will work!
> http://www.aviation.levil.com/AHRS.htm
>
> How do we enforce the no cell phone rule again? Why do we have it
> again?

You've now officially used up the "Attaboys" from the Delorme fee waiver.

That was quick!

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

Sean F (F2)

February 22nd 13, 04:34 AM

If soaring is a sport of ladies and gentleman, why ask them to store the one reliable communication device out of reach while flying? Let's think about that for a moment from a safety and general intelligence prospective. What happens of the pilot is forced to bail out and has no cell phone on his person? What happens if the pilot crashes, is injured and cannot move? Perhaps he or she can use their cell phone? There Spot is all but useless, trust me. ;-) Why not allow gentlemen to be gentleman without the overbearing, unenforceable rules? The answer to this question is obvious. KISS.

Ask yourselves this question. Was the pilot in Mifflin last year who crashed in the tree's disqualified for having his cell phone in reach when he was handing in the tree and called his wife? Hmmm? Was he cheating? Why not? What we he have done if he could not have reached his cell phone? Hmm? You cannot imagine how amazed I was that nobody mentioned this. I held back but cannot any longer.

Today, (as far as I am aware) it is ILLEGAL to have a cell or smart phone in the glider in the US during a contest. In or out of reach. I'll pause for a minute. You are asked to instead go "buy a disposable at Walmart (with terrible brand X service and no stored numbers) in order to participate in a US SSA sanctioned sailplane contest." I'll pause again. With that fact now sunk in a bit, it is worth mentioning that absolutely nobody enforces these rules at contests? If that is the case, why have the rule again? Everyone has smart phones, why not simply allow them because LIKE IT OR NOT, EVERYONE IS FLYING WITH THEM ANYWAY AND HAS BEEN FOR YEARS BECAUSE THE RULE IS ANNOYING AND USELESS!

On Thursday, February 21, 2013 10:52:21 PM UTC-5, Richard Walters wrote:
> At 21:57 21 February 2013, Don Johnstone wrote:
>
> >At 22:21 20 February 2013, Sean F F2 wrote:
>
> >>Oh yes, Mobile phones are absolutely cardinal sins to the
>
> SSA and US
>
> >Rules
>
> >>Team.
>
> >>
>
> >>We are all assumed guilty until proven innocent here. The
>
> installation
>
> >of
>
> >>an AH is absolute admission of your intention to cheat.
>
> >>It has no safety purpose other than to cloud fly and cheat
>
> your opponents
>
> >>of course.
>
> >Given that an iPhone is very small and easily concealed how
>
> does the SSA
>
> >get round the 4th amendment. Are they exempt?
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
> Dan and Sean,
>
> In what was formerly a gentlemen and women's sport, we would
>
> ask that cell phones be stored out of reach during flight. No
>
> fourth amendment rights were harmed and a fair competition
>
> could result.
>
> Richard Walters
>
> Regionals and Nationals CD

Tony[_5_]

February 22nd 13, 03:05 PM

the rules do take the 'gentlemanly' approach. they allow wireless telephones to be carried as long as they are not used in flight. How reasonable.

Sean F (F2)

February 22nd 13, 05:03 PM

And if they need the phone for an emergency? And what advantage do you think having a cell phone in your pocket (illegal according to the SSA) provides? So what if they have it on the panel running a nav software or displaying weather. Why should they be forced to by another device which by the way requires special software to disable its AH capability (that does not work in cloud). Stupid rules add up and = annoyance and aggravation. There is a cost to these pointless rules.

[email protected]

February 22nd 13, 05:12 PM

On Friday, February 22, 2013 9:05:01 AM UTC-6, Tony wrote:
> the rules do take the 'gentlemanly' approach. they allow wireless telephones to be carried as long as they are not used in flight. How reasonable.

And yet that same approach is unacceptable for artificial horizons. makes no sense to trust the gentlemen in one instance and not the other.

[email protected]

February 22nd 13, 05:22 PM

On Friday, February 22, 2013 11:12:20 AM UTC-6, wrote:
> On Friday, February 22, 2013 9:05:01 AM UTC-6, Tony wrote:
>
> > the rules do take the 'gentlemanly' approach. they allow wireless telephones to be carried as long as they are not used in flight. How reasonable.
>
>
>
> And yet that same approach is unacceptable for artificial horizons. makes no sense to trust the gentlemen in one instance and not the other.

There is a big difference between a cell phone, in your pocket, of very questionable use in flight anyway, and a real, gyro-operated, trustworthy, artificial horizon staring you in the face from the instrument panel. They AH is very useful indeed for someone hearty enough to head up into a cu to get some altitude before heading through the big blue hole, or to get through the rain and storm that the rest of us go way around or even land out rather than penetrate.

It's a matter of social dynamics as well. Nobody else is going to be bothered by the thought of you having a cell phone in your pocket and you might want to waste some time in flight playing with it. The rule just clarifies "don't do it" so you know if you do that you're cheating.

If people show up with real artificial horizons a on/off switch from operation, it's pretty clear that everyone will assume it's being used illegally and think "I have to get one too." They can justify cheating on the idea "well, everyone else is doing it."

Spring cannot come soon enough.

John Cochrane

son_of_flubber

February 22nd 13, 05:30 PM

I know that we have some math whizes on RAS. Would it be possible to ferret out the cheaters by an automated statistical analysis of flight logs? To forestall rancor, gentle_pilots would agree beforehand to accept the arbitration of the AI.

Don Johnstone[_4_]

February 22nd 13, 07:12 PM

At 17:22 22 February 2013, wrote:
>On Friday, February 22, 2013 11:12:20 AM UTC-6,
>wrote=
>:
>> On Friday, February 22, 2013 9:05:01 AM UTC-6, Tony wrote:
>>=20
>> > the rules do take the 'gentlemanly' approach. they allow wireless
>telep=
>hones to be carried as long as they are not used in flight. How
reasonable.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> And yet that same approach is unacceptable for artificial horizons.
>make=
>s no sense to trust the gentlemen in one instance and not the other.
>
>There is a big difference between a cell phone, in your pocket, of very
>que=
>stionable use in flight anyway, and a real, gyro-operated, trustworthy,
>art=
>ificial horizon staring you in the face from the instrument panel. They
AH
>=
>is very useful indeed for someone hearty enough to head up into a cu to
>get=
> some altitude before heading through the big blue hole, or to get
through
>=
>the rain and storm that the rest of us go way around or even land out
>rathe=
>r than penetrate.
> =20
>It's a matter of social dynamics as well. Nobody else is going to be
>bother=
>ed by the thought of you having a cell phone in your pocket and you might
>w=
>ant to waste some time in flight playing with it. The rule just clarifies
>"=
>don't do it" so you know if you do that you're cheating.=20
>
>If people show up with real artificial horizons a on/off switch from
>operat=
>ion, it's pretty clear that everyone will assume it's being used
illegally
>=
>and think "I have to get one too." They can justify cheating on the idea
>"w=
>ell, everyone else is doing it."=20
>
>Spring cannot come soon enough.=20
>
>John Cochrane

Firstly some facts. I can only speak for the iPhone but I suspect the same
applies to the software on any smart phone. The Artificial Horizon app is
pretty accurate over the 10 of 15 minutes that it is likely to be used to
carry out a climb (or descent) in cloud. (I know this because I have tested
it). Over time it does become un-reliable.
It is almost impossible to detect a iPhone if it is being carried on the
person and switched off so if a person gets into a glider with an iPhone it
will be impossible to detect without a search. In the USA you have the
forth amendment so conducting a personal search is unlawful and I suspect
that a competition rule requiring competitors to submit to a search would
fall foul of the first amendment. The conclusion is that any rule banning
the taking into the air of a smart phone is completely un-enforceable.
So you have a rule. Some people will comply with the rule, because they are
honest and playing the game is more important than winning. These people
would not use, or even fit, an artificial horizon in their aircraft,
because they know that IFR flight is illegal so such an instrument is
unecessary, so the rule is unecessary for them.
Some people will see that there is a great advantage to having a smart
phone with the app. They would not normally cheat but they will know that
there are some who will take advantage and do not feel that they should be
disadvantaged by a rule which they know cannot be enforced, and that others
will break, so they will consider using their smart phone.
Then there are the others who will use every means possible to win, they
will take a smart phone because they know it might give them the advantage
and that they cannot be caught.
I think you will see that having a rule which there is absolutely no
chance of being able to enforce is far worse than having no rule at all.
The solution is simple, forget about rules about carrying unlawful items
and deal with the real offence of flying IFR, while that may be difficult
to enforce it can be done. Treat the disease, not the symptoms.
Thankfully in the UK we can still fly in cloud so we do not have the
problem, we do have a law banning unlawful searches and a wonderful
organisation called the European Court for Human rights, which is similar
to your first amendment with bells and whistles and which changes on a
regular basis. (They make it up as they go along). Probably best not to get
me started the lands the other side of the English Channel, especially that
one. :-)

Sean F (F2)

February 22nd 13, 08:35 PM

For the record I am completely against cloud flying in contest or at all. It is illegal here in the US for very good reason. Pilots who do so are doing so COMPLETELY ILLEGALLY and should have their license revolked. My issue is that the "opportunity cost" of trying to "enforce" the cloud flying issue via addition US rules is punishing everyone by inconvienent ALL CONTEST PILOTS (fact). If people choose to cloud fly, eventually they will either get caught or pay the price for their irresponsibility. I think that approach is far cleaner than the great lengths it takes to try and regulate it. Basically, it is what we are relying on now anyway.

Furthermore, the LX instruments (8000, 8080, 9000) have the capability as does the butterfly vario. Many other instuments and systems provide thr capability ALONG WITH NUMEROUS OTHER MODERN FEATURES! Agreed these are fully reliable AH instruments which will allow said pilot a fighting chance at safe flight in cloud. But the reason I see these units demanded is not to cloud fly. It is the Butterfly and thenp LX units are amongst the very best soaring instruments available today. As is XC Soar for low cost soaring nav software. The ability to also have a quality AH as part of the feature set of these instruments is mainly considered a backup encase a chance encounter with cloud occurs.

As with sailing, eventually all cheaters are caught. Lets assume honesty and cut the needless hassle out of the equation for the rest of us. Cell and smart phones should be fine. Common soaring instruments (modern, etc) should be fine too. Let this silly crusade go. If someone is found to be cheating in a contest the punishment should be harsh. Why not make the penalty public and severe? They should be turned into the FAA and banned from the SSA. This is a better enforcement policy than I enforceable and inconvienent rules for everyone within the sport from pilots to USRC to manufactures of hardware and software (pure fact).

Sean

Tony[_5_]

February 22nd 13, 08:35 PM

On Friday, February 22, 2013 1:12:16 PM UTC-6, Don Johnstone wrote:
> At 17:22 22 February 2013, wrote: >On Friday, February 22, 2013 11:12:20 AM UTC-6, >wrote= >: >> On Friday, February 22, 2013 9:05:01 AM UTC-6, Tony wrote: >>=20 >> > the rules do take the 'gentlemanly' approach. they allow wireless >telep= >hones to be carried as long as they are not used in flight. How reasonable. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> And yet that same approach is unacceptable for artificial horizons. >make= >s no sense to trust the gentlemen in one instance and not the other. > >There is a big difference between a cell phone, in your pocket, of very >que= >stionable use in flight anyway, and a real, gyro-operated, trustworthy, >art= >ificial horizon staring you in the face from the instrument panel. They AH >= >is very useful indeed for someone hearty enough to head up into a cu to >get= > some altitude before heading through the big blue hole, or to get through >= >the rain and storm that the rest of us go way around or even land out >rathe= >r than penetrate. > =20 >It's a matter of social dynamics as well. Nobody else is going to be >bother= >ed by the thought of you having a cell phone in your pocket and you might >w= >ant to waste some time in flight playing with it. The rule just clarifies >"= >don't do it" so you know if you do that you're cheating.=20 > >If people show up with real artificial horizons a on/off switch from >operat= >ion, it's pretty clear that everyone will assume it's being used illegally >= >and think "I have to get one too." They can justify cheating on the idea >"w= >ell, everyone else is doing it."=20 > >Spring cannot come soon enough.=20 > >John Cochrane Firstly some facts. I can only speak for the iPhone but I suspect the same applies to the software on any smart phone. The Artificial Horizon app is pretty accurate over the 10 of 15 minutes that it is likely to be used to carry out a climb (or descent) in cloud. (I know this because I have tested it). Over time it does become un-reliable. It is almost impossible to detect a iPhone if it is being carried on the person and switched off so if a person gets into a glider with an iPhone it will be impossible to detect without a search. In the USA you have the forth amendment so conducting a personal search is unlawful and I suspect that a competition rule requiring competitors to submit to a search would fall foul of the first amendment. The conclusion is that any rule banning the taking into the air of a smart phone is completely un-enforceable. So you have a rule. Some people will comply with the rule, because they are honest and playing the game is more important than winning. These people would not use, or even fit, an artificial horizon in their aircraft, because they know that IFR flight is illegal so such an instrument is unecessary, so the rule is unecessary for them. Some people will see that there is a great advantage to having a smart phone with the app. They would not normally cheat but they will know that there are some who will take advantage and do not feel that they should be disadvantaged by a rule which they know cannot be enforced, and that others will break, so they will consider using their smart phone. Then there are the others who will use every means possible to win, they will take a smart phone because they know it might give them the advantage and that they cannot be caught. I think you will see that having a rule which there is absolutely no chance of being able to enforce is far worse than having no rule at all. The solution is simple, forget about rules about carrying unlawful items and deal with the real offence of flying IFR, while that may be difficult to enforce it can be done. Treat the disease, not the symptoms. Thankfully in the UK we can still fly in cloud so we do not have the problem, we do have a law banning unlawful searches and a wonderful organisation called the European Court for Human rights, which is similar to your first amendment with bells and whistles and which changes on a regular basis. (They make it up as they go along). Probably best not to get me started the lands the other side of the English Channel, especially that one. :-)

i'm no constitutional scholar but i'm pretty sure the bill of rights are a contract between the people and the government, not between pilots and the SSA. Either way it is expected that pilots will carry their phones with them in flight and if it is suspected or reported that they are using them to gather in flight data during an SSA contest flight it will be between the pilot and the CD to determine the appropriate outcome.

kirk.stant

February 23rd 13, 10:33 AM

On Friday, February 22, 2013 9:35:14 PM UTC+1, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> For the record I am completely against cloud flying in contest or at all. It is illegal here in the US for very good reason. Pilots who do so are doing so COMPLETELY ILLEGALLY and should have their license revolked.

Wait a second, Sean. It is ABSOLUTELY NOT ILLEGAL to cloud fly in the US. If you want to cloud fly, you have to be IFR rated and your glider has to be IFR equipped. Then you just have to get a clearance from ATC (assuming you are going to cloud fly in controlled airspace) and off you go into the murk. If you are like most glider pilots in most gliders, busting the VFR cloud clearances for the airspace you are in (you remember those?) is not ILLEGAL, it a violation of the FARs and can get you your certificate revoked.

Cloud flying in contest, however, is prohibited in US rules. NOT ILLEGAL, but it's CHEATING.

If you are going to get on a soapbox and rant, at least get your facts and terminology right, please ;^)

Kirk
66

Sean F (F2)

February 23rd 13, 12:47 PM

IFR rated glider ;-). Lol.

kirk.stant

February 23rd 13, 03:00 PM

On Saturday, February 23, 2013 1:47:27 PM UTC+1, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> IFR rated glider ;-). Lol.

There is an FAA designated examiner and Customs P-3 pilot down in Florida who has an IFR equipped (not rated, whatever that is) Nimbus 3. I delivered it to him in Houston from Phoenix several years ago. He cloud climbs legally with it, with a clearance.

Sean, just because YOU don't do it, doesn't mean others don't.

Cheers,

Kirk
66

Sean F (F2)

February 23rd 13, 05:21 PM

So there is one. :-). I stand corrected!

John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]

February 23rd 13, 07:51 PM

Gordon Boettger - Sierra wave flights.

Bill D

February 23rd 13, 07:59 PM

On Saturday, February 23, 2013 10:21:04 AM UTC-7, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> So there is one. :-). I stand corrected!

Far more than one. I know an FAA inspector equipping his glider for IFR and night flying with the view to setting records in wave.

If one starts with an airplane instrument rating, flying gliders under instrument flight rules (as opposed to instrument meteorological conditions) is not that difficult and, in some instances, offers significant benefits.

Sean F (F2)

February 23rd 13, 08:55 PM

Cool! I'm an IFR rated pilot, but until now was unaware of the IFR sailplane scene. I think it's fine but still agree it has no place in contest.

Terence Wilson[_2_]

February 23rd 13, 09:04 PM

On Saturday, February 23, 2013 7:00:22 AM UTC-8, kirk.stant wrote:
> On Saturday, February 23, 2013 1:47:27 PM UTC+1, Sean F (F2) wrote:
>
> > IFR rated glider ;-). Lol.
>
>
>
> There is an FAA designated examiner and Customs P-3 pilot down in Florida who has an IFR equipped (not rated, whatever that is) Nimbus 3. I delivered it to him in Houston from Phoenix several years ago. He cloud climbs legally with it, with a clearance.
>
>
>
> Sean, just because YOU don't do it, doesn't mean others don't.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Kirk
>
> 66

I'm aware that there are a handful of gliders out there flying IFR, but I'm curious how they comply with the FARs, for example, the requirement to have an alternator/generator. Is there an exemption granted from the FSDO or do these guys just skirt the rules?

Tony[_5_]

February 23rd 13, 09:10 PM

On Saturday, February 23, 2013 3:04:16 PM UTC-6, Terence Wilson wrote:
> On Saturday, February 23, 2013 7:00:22 AM UTC-8, kirk.stant wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, February 23, 2013 1:47:27 PM UTC+1, Sean F (F2) wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > IFR rated glider ;-). Lol.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > There is an FAA designated examiner and Customs P-3 pilot down in Florida who has an IFR equipped (not rated, whatever that is) Nimbus 3. I delivered it to him in Houston from Phoenix several years ago. He cloud climbs legally with it, with a clearance.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Sean, just because YOU don't do it, doesn't mean others don't.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Cheers,
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Kirk
>
> >
>
> > 66
>
>
>
> I'm aware that there are a handful of gliders out there flying IFR, but I'm curious how they comply with the FARs, for example, the requirement to have an alternator/generator. Is there an exemption granted from the FSDO or do these guys just skirt the rules?

those rules apply to airplanes not gliders. gliders that are approved for instrument flight or "cloud flying" have a list of required instruments for instrument flight in their manuals or on their type certificates.

Terence Wilson[_2_]

February 23rd 13, 09:35 PM

On Saturday, February 23, 2013 1:10:40 PM UTC-8, Tony wrote:
> On Saturday, February 23, 2013 3:04:16 PM UTC-6, Terence Wilson wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, February 23, 2013 7:00:22 AM UTC-8, kirk.stant wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Saturday, February 23, 2013 1:47:27 PM UTC+1, Sean F (F2) wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > IFR rated glider ;-). Lol.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > There is an FAA designated examiner and Customs P-3 pilot down in Florida who has an IFR equipped (not rated, whatever that is) Nimbus 3. I delivered it to him in Houston from Phoenix several years ago. He cloud climbs legally with it, with a clearance.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Sean, just because YOU don't do it, doesn't mean others don't.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Cheers,
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Kirk
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > 66
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I'm aware that there are a handful of gliders out there flying IFR, but I'm curious how they comply with the FARs, for example, the requirement to have an alternator/generator. Is there an exemption granted from the FSDO or do these guys just skirt the rules?
>
>
>
> those rules apply to airplanes not gliders. gliders that are approved for instrument flight or "cloud flying" have a list of required instruments for instrument flight in their manuals or on their type certificates.

Ah-ha. Thanks for the clarification.

Bill D

February 23rd 13, 10:19 PM

On Saturday, February 23, 2013 2:10:40 PM UTC-7, Tony wrote:
> On Saturday, February 23, 2013 3:04:16 PM UTC-6, Terence Wilson wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, February 23, 2013 7:00:22 AM UTC-8, kirk.stant wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Saturday, February 23, 2013 1:47:27 PM UTC+1, Sean F (F2) wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > IFR rated glider ;-). Lol.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > There is an FAA designated examiner and Customs P-3 pilot down in Florida who has an IFR equipped (not rated, whatever that is) Nimbus 3. I delivered it to him in Houston from Phoenix several years ago. He cloud climbs legally with it, with a clearance.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Sean, just because YOU don't do it, doesn't mean others don't.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Cheers,
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Kirk
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > 66
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I'm aware that there are a handful of gliders out there flying IFR, but I'm curious how they comply with the FARs, for example, the requirement to have an alternator/generator. Is there an exemption granted from the FSDO or do these guys just skirt the rules?
>
>
>
> those rules apply to airplanes not gliders. gliders that are approved for instrument flight or "cloud flying" have a list of required instruments for instrument flight in their manuals or on their type certificates.

Long ago the FAA changed from writing blanket rules to making Approved Flight Manuals part of an aircraft's airworthiness certification documentation thus avoiding the need for an endless list of exceptions and waivers. Then they wrote 91.9 requiring everyone to operate in compliance with AFM's. Read your manual! It has just as much legal force as the FAR's.

Sean F (F2)

February 24th 13, 12:42 AM

Not sure where this is going.

The fact is that all contest gliders are NOT IFR LEGAL. So making other rules on this point and going to lengths to ban AHs is unnecessary. The rule is clear as is the law.

Sean

February 24th 13, 08:56 AM

On Saturday, February 23, 2013 11:10:40 PM UTC+2, Tony wrote:
> On Saturday, February 23, 2013 3:04:16 PM UTC-6, Terence Wilson wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, February 23, 2013 7:00:22 AM UTC-8, kirk.stant wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Saturday, February 23, 2013 1:47:27 PM UTC+1, Sean F (F2) wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > IFR rated glider ;-). Lol.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > There is an FAA designated examiner and Customs P-3 pilot down in Florida who has an IFR equipped (not rated, whatever that is) Nimbus 3. I delivered it to him in Houston from Phoenix several years ago. He cloud climbs legally with it, with a clearance.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Sean, just because YOU don't do it, doesn't mean others don't.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Cheers,
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Kirk
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > 66
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I'm aware that there are a handful of gliders out there flying IFR, but I'm curious how they comply with the FARs, for example, the requirement to have an alternator/generator. Is there an exemption granted from the FSDO or do these guys just skirt the rules?
>
>
>
> those rules apply to airplanes not gliders. gliders that are approved for instrument flight or "cloud flying" have a list of required instruments for instrument flight in their manuals or on their type certificates.

"Cloud flying" is little bit different than "instrument flying". IFR airplanes need a capability to navigate enroute and approach airfield in instrument conditions. Cloud flying glider is operating in VFR conditions, so there is no need for navigational equipment. That's why equipment requirements for cloud flying (essentially turn&bank and 10m/s vario in most European countries that allow cloud flying) are pretty modest compared to real instrument flying gear.

I encourage everyone to cloud flying (legally of course, with proper training and equipment). It is most difficult, exciting and fun thing you can do in glider.

son_of_flubber

February 24th 13, 09:42 PM

On Sunday, February 24, 2013 3:56:45 AM UTC-5, rk wrote:
>It is most difficult, exciting and fun thing you can do in glider.

So if a US pilot wanted to experience cloud flying in a glider, could he go to England and get some instruction? Do the English thermal up through clouds on a typical blue_sky_and_CU_day, or do they reserve the cloud flying for unexpected weather and emergencies?

And do I understand correctly that the only legal way to fly in clouds in the USA is 1)in an unanticipated emergency (getting caught above deck when flying wave) in which case no IFR rating is required and it can be accomplished with a turn and bank indicator and basic instruments, or 2)with an IFR rating and in a glider fully equipped for IFR flying (landings and navigation included)?

It seems a little out of touch with reality that gliders frequently put themselves in the position where they might need to descend through clouds and yet they typically do not have the training or carry the instruments to handle that situation. Is this because the FAR were written before it was common for gliders to fly in wave? If we brought this anomaly to the attention of the FAA, are we afraid that they will outlaw wave flying?

[email protected]

February 24th 13, 10:06 PM

> It seems a little out of touch with reality that gliders frequently put themselves in the position where they might need to descend through clouds and yet they typically do not have the training or carry the instruments to handle that situation. Is this because the FAR were written before it was common for gliders to fly in wave? If we brought this anomaly to the attention of the FAA, are we afraid that they will outlaw wave flying?

US gliders do not frequently put themselves in a position where they might need to descend through clouds! The first lesson you learn when wave flying is absolutely not to let this happen, just like "don't fly into thunderstorms" in the flatlands. And if you do it, properly, calling ATC and telling them you have an emergency, expect a long debriefing when you land.

John Cochrane

son_of_flubber

February 24th 13, 10:58 PM

On Sunday, February 24, 2013 5:06:33 PM UTC-5, wrote:

> US gliders do not frequently put themselves in a position where they might need to descend through clouds! The first lesson you learn when wave flying is absolutely not to let this happen.

How does a pilot gain the power to "absolutely not let this happen"? Knowledge and experience do not control the weather.

And of course it all depends on how you define the word "frequently". I've heard pilots recall the blue hole closing up and then "luckily" reopening somewhere else within reach. My impression is that every time people fly wave on the east coast, it is a roll of the dice whether they will get stuck above the cloud deck. Maybe it works out most of the time, but wave flying pilots put themselves in the position where they "might" have to descend through clouds. I have no idea how frequently that happens. But it certainly happens. I've flown in wave. I've not been caught above deck. Good luck so far I guess.

The other FAR conflict I notices with wave flying is that that pilots routinely violate the stipulated horizontal offset from the rotor cloud. Why not equip gliders (with a turn and bank indicator) and pilots (with training) to safely handle a few minutes of cloud flying if it is a non-zero possibility?

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

February 24th 13, 11:35 PM

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 13:42:29 -0800, son_of_flubber wrote:

> On Sunday, February 24, 2013 3:56:45 AM UTC-5, rk wrote:
>>It is most difficult, exciting and fun thing you can do in glider.
>
> So if a US pilot wanted to experience cloud flying in a glider, could he
> go to England and get some instruction?
>
I don't see why not.

> Do the English thermal up
> through clouds on a typical blue_sky_and_CU_day, or do they reserve the
> cloud flying for unexpected weather and emergencies?
>
A number of pilots in my club do just that. We currently have no specific
cloud flying qualifying just as we don't have a glider pilot license.
Actually there is a British Glider Pilots License but it has no validity
inside the UK, because all glider flying is club based and under the
control of the instructorate. The BGPL is for use over seas: a few years
back I rocked up on the Wasserkuppe, showed my BGPL and medical to the
nice lady at the flight school and got sent out to take a check ride in
an ASK-21 and get briefed on the site. After that I got sent off in an
ASK-23.

But I digress. We're currently preparing for the switch over to the EASA
licensing regime and there will be a cloud flying qualification but it
will be simpler than the power IFR rating because, from the nature of
gliding, it will only be exercised on VMC days and typically with the
cloud base well above ground level.

Anyway, I was talking to one of our instructors about this last week and
he was telling me what he expects the qualification will involve. He
mentioned procedural timed turns onto heading and, when I queried the
need for this he explained that he routinely checks the direction of a
cloud street before entering cloud with the intention of continuing to
climb while flying along the street.

Its quite normal, on a good day, to hear reports of gliders entering
cloud on the radio.

> And do I understand correctly that the only legal way to fly in clouds
> in the USA is 1)in an unanticipated emergency (getting caught above deck
> when flying wave) in which case no IFR rating is required and it can be
> accomplished with a turn and bank indicator and basic instruments, or
> 2)with an IFR rating and in a glider fully equipped for IFR flying
> (landings and navigation included)?
>
Thats interesting: I have a copy of "Once Upon A Thermal" (great book,
BTW), in which Dick Wolters wrote a long chapter about wave flying in New
England which involved in-cloud descents. Were they being naughty boys or
were things different then? IIRC he had a basic blind flying panel in his
Libelle. So have I.

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

son_of_flubber

February 24th 13, 11:51 PM

On Sunday, February 24, 2013 6:35:39 PM UTC-5, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>We're currently preparing for the switch over to the EASA
> licensing regime and there will be a cloud flying qualification but it
> will be simpler than the power IFR rating because, from the nature of
> gliding, it will only be exercised on VMC days and typically with the
> cloud base well above ground level.

That seems rather sensible. I would like to see something similar in the USA because we have similar clouds over here. ;)

> > And do I understand correctly that the only legal way to fly in clouds
>
> > in the USA...

> Thats interesting:

This is purely speculative on my part, not a statement of facts.

> I have a copy of "Once Upon A Thermal" (great book,
> BTW), in which Dick Wolters wrote a long chapter about wave flying in New
> England which involved in-cloud descents. Were they being naughty boys or
> were things different then?

All I know is that wave flying conditions are still rather dynamic and rapidly changeable in New England.

Bob Whelan[_3_]

February 24th 13, 11:57 PM

On 2/24/2013 3:58 PM, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Sunday, February 24, 2013 5:06:33 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>
>> US gliders do not frequently put themselves in a position where they
>> might need to descend through clouds! The first lesson you learn when
>> wave flying is absolutely not to let this happen.
>
> How does a pilot gain the power to "absolutely not let this happen"?
> Knowledge and experience do not control the weather.
>
> And of course it all depends on how you define the word "frequently". I've
> heard pilots recall the blue hole closing up and then "luckily" reopening
> somewhere else within reach. My impression is that every time people fly
> wave on the east coast, it is a roll of the dice whether they will get
> stuck above the cloud deck...
<Snipperoo...>

FWIW, I took my training in Cumberland, MD, in the early '70's, at which point
& location my wave education began...regrettably (or perhaps luckily!) without
my gaining any first-hand wave experience there. That didn't happen until I'd
moved to Colorado...where in the 3 decades since I have trouble recalling ANY
"solidly overcast" waves.

I've no doubt they occur here, but either the frequency of occurrence is so
infrequent or "something else" applies (e.g. those wavish, solid cloud decks I
can recall have always had bases well above the rocks; moisture also arrives
quite slowly in these parts). In any event, out here, "my eastern concern"
about getting caught atop a solid cloud deck while wave flying quickly went
into the dustbin of history...whereas it very definitely *was* (and would be
if I flew wave there) a concern of mine "back east."

IOW, my sense remains your sense of "eastern cloud deck" wave possibilities is
quite prudent...

Bob W.

Evan Ludeman[_4_]

February 25th 13, 12:26 AM

On Sunday, February 24, 2013 6:51:56 PM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:

> All I know is that wave flying conditions are still rather dynamic and rapidly changeable in New England.

Yes, they are. There are procedures for dealing with this safely. It starts with review of forecast soundings in the morning and doesn't really end until the last ship is on the ground.

At 18K or higher, it's easy to tell when conditions are changing. You can see moisture coming from tens of miles away upwind.

Stories of guys getting caught on top generally involve willful flying at altitude with 80% or more cloud cover below. If you descend when it looks like 80% ten miles upwind and is still less than 80% below, you'll never get caught on top. Like everything else in aviation, safety is very much about setting sensible limits and sticking to them

As far as Old Dog's war stories, well, they did a lot of dumb stuff back when, particularly w.r.t. oxygen (or lack of) but I never heard of intentional descents in cloud. Given the terrain around Mt Wash, this is beyond crazy without GPS.

Evan Ludeman / T8

Dan Marotta

February 25th 13, 03:50 PM

"son_of_flubber" > wrote in message
...
On Sunday, February 24, 2013 5:06:33 PM UTC-5, wrote:

> snip ...Why not equip gliders (with a turn and bank indicator) and pilots
> (with training) to safely handle a few minutes of cloud flying if it is a
> non-zero possibility?

That's a pretty naive question. The average VFR pilot has "178 seconds to
live" after an inadvertent trip into IMC, according to the Air Safety
Foundation. So what training do you think would equip the average VFR pilot
to "safely handle a few minutes of cloud flying"?

My Air Force pilot training lasted over a year but produced a competent
instrument pilot. In service, I used to practice partial panel (needle and
ball) recoveries from unusual attitudes in a two-seater. I was *very good*
on instruments.

Still, with a TruTrac in my panel, I don't feel at all safe to venture into
IMC in my glider since I haven't flown IFR in about 10 years. It's a
perishable skill.

While at FL290 on my Diamond climb, I noticed the clouds beginning to close
below me. I opened the dive brakes on the L-23 and flew downwind to the
sink and performed an emergency descent. Maintaining sutuational awareness
will keep you out of the clouds in all but the rarest of circumstances.
Good judgement will keep you from getting into situations that require
superior skill. (BTW, I got the diamond and completed the badge on that
flight.)

Dan, 5J

[email protected]

February 25th 13, 05:22 PM

On Monday, February 25, 2013 9:50:52 AM UTC-6, Dan Marotta wrote:
> "son_of_flubber" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> On Sunday, February 24, 2013 5:06:33 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>
>
>
> > snip ...Why not equip gliders (with a turn and bank indicator) and pilots
>
> > (with training) to safely handle a few minutes of cloud flying if it is a
>
> > non-zero possibility?
>
>
>
>
>
> That's a pretty naive question. The average VFR pilot has "178 seconds to
>
> live" after an inadvertent trip into IMC, according to the Air Safety
>
> Foundation. So what training do you think would equip the average VFR pilot
>
> to "safely handle a few minutes of cloud flying"?
>
>
>
> My Air Force pilot training lasted over a year but produced a competent
>
> instrument pilot. In service, I used to practice partial panel (needle and
>
> ball) recoveries from unusual attitudes in a two-seater. I was *very good*
>
> on instruments.
>
>
>
> Still, with a TruTrac in my panel, I don't feel at all safe to venture into
>
> IMC in my glider since I haven't flown IFR in about 10 years. It's a
>
> perishable skill.
>
>
>
> While at FL290 on my Diamond climb, I noticed the clouds beginning to close
>
> below me. I opened the dive brakes on the L-23 and flew downwind to the
>
> sink and performed an emergency descent. Maintaining sutuational awareness
>
> will keep you out of the clouds in all but the rarest of circumstances.
>
> Good judgement will keep you from getting into situations that require
>
> superior skill. (BTW, I got the diamond and completed the badge on that
>
> flight.)
>
>
>
> Dan, 5J

Thanks Dan, naive is the word for many of the above posts. Flying into clouds with little or now training is suicidal. The glider will break up and you'll hope the parachute packer is your friend. The false reliance on the an AI or turn-and-bank may keep you from going through the last hole in the undercast until it's too late.
A friend of mine back in Germany told me this story 30 years ago: he decided to "try" cloudflying in his wooden ship one day, using a turn indicator. After the 3 min or that Dan's mentioned, things went wrong. Speed went up and down, he was tossed around in the cockpit and had lost control. When he was falling out of the cloud, he looked down to see the ground but found the ground "above" him. He was not aware of his upside-down orientation. His old but sturdy glider never went past vne so he lived to tell the story.

Herb

waremark

February 25th 13, 06:39 PM

On Monday, 25 February 2013 17:22:39 UTC, wrote:
> On Monday, February 25, 2013 9:50:52 AM UTC-6, Dan Marotta wrote:
>
> > "son_of_flubber" > wrote in message
>
> >
>
> > ...
>
> >
>
> > On Sunday, February 24, 2013 5:06:33 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > snip ...Why not equip gliders (with a turn and bank indicator) and pilots
>
> >
>
> > > (with training) to safely handle a few minutes of cloud flying if it is a
>
> >
>
> > > non-zero possibility?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > That's a pretty naive question. The average VFR pilot has "178 seconds to
>
> >
>
> > live" after an inadvertent trip into IMC, according to the Air Safety
>
> >
>
> > Foundation. So what training do you think would equip the average VFR pilot
>
> >
>
> > to "safely handle a few minutes of cloud flying"?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > My Air Force pilot training lasted over a year but produced a competent
>
> >
>
> > instrument pilot. In service, I used to practice partial panel (needle and
>
> >
>
> > ball) recoveries from unusual attitudes in a two-seater. I was *very good*
>
> >
>
> > on instruments.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Still, with a TruTrac in my panel, I don't feel at all safe to venture into
>
> >
>
> > IMC in my glider since I haven't flown IFR in about 10 years. It's a
>
> >
>
> > perishable skill.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > While at FL290 on my Diamond climb, I noticed the clouds beginning to close
>
> >
>
> > below me. I opened the dive brakes on the L-23 and flew downwind to the
>
> >
>
> > sink and performed an emergency descent. Maintaining sutuational awareness
>
> >
>
> > will keep you out of the clouds in all but the rarest of circumstances.
>
> >
>
> > Good judgement will keep you from getting into situations that require
>
> >
>
> > superior skill. (BTW, I got the diamond and completed the badge on that
>
> >
>
> > flight.)
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Dan, 5J
>
>
>
> Thanks Dan, naive is the word for many of the above posts. Flying into clouds with little or now training is suicidal. The glider will break up and you'll hope the parachute packer is your friend. The false reliance on the an AI or turn-and-bank may keep you from going through the last hole in the undercast until it's too late.
>
> A friend of mine back in Germany told me this story 30 years ago: he decided to "try" cloudflying in his wooden ship one day, using a turn indicator.. After the 3 min or that Dan's mentioned, things went wrong. Speed went up and down, he was tossed around in the cockpit and had lost control. When he was falling out of the cloud, he looked down to see the ground but found the ground "above" him. He was not aware of his upside-down orientation.. His old but sturdy glider never went past vne so he lived to tell the story.
>
>
>
> Herb

While I don't suggest cloud flying is to be taken lightly, most people who do it in the countries where it is permitted seem to survive (with their gliders intact and their parachutes unused). Here it is permitted, and there is no formal qualification or training scheme - though there will be soon, for which the syllabus is yet to be determined. It is not a significant cause of accidents in the UK (I cannot recall reading of such an accident in the accident reports).

Most gliders at our club are equipped with artificial horizons - I have the AH module for my LX9000. Dynon units are very popular (I have never heard of anyone trusting a mobile phone app). Many types of glider level the wings and maintain a stable speed if you open the airbrakes from a spiral dive - so the 'get out of jail' plan if the instrument fails or you lose control is to let go of the stick and open the brakes while the speed is still quite low and you are trimmed appropriately. You had better be sure that cloudbase is well above the highest ground anywhere near!

Since I hold an 'IMC endorsement' for my PPL, I get tested on partial panel recovery from unusual attitudes every 2 years in a Cessna or Piper. However, this is in a draggy 'spam can' - a slippery glider is a different kettle of fish, putting on speed much more quickly in a nose down attitude. Personally, I would not expect to be able to cloud fly a glider without an artificial horizon, though there are many pilots who can and do.

Mark, from London Gliding Club, Dunstable, UK

Frank Whiteley

February 25th 13, 08:41 PM

On Sunday, February 24, 2013 2:42:29 PM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Sunday, February 24, 2013 3:56:45 AM UTC-5, rk wrote:
>
> >It is most difficult, exciting and fun thing you can do in glider.
>
>
>
> So if a US pilot wanted to experience cloud flying in a glider, could he go to England and get some instruction? Do the English thermal up through clouds on a typical blue_sky_and_CU_day, or do they reserve the cloud flying for unexpected weather and emergencies?
>
>
>
> And do I understand correctly that the only legal way to fly in clouds in the USA is 1)in an unanticipated emergency (getting caught above deck when flying wave) in which case no IFR rating is required and it can be accomplished with a turn and bank indicator and basic instruments, or 2)with an IFR rating and in a glider fully equipped for IFR flying (landings and navigation included)?
>
>
>
> It seems a little out of touch with reality that gliders frequently put themselves in the position where they might need to descend through clouds and yet they typically do not have the training or carry the instruments to handle that situation. Is this because the FAR were written before it was common for gliders to fly in wave? If we brought this anomaly to the attention of the FAA, are we afraid that they will outlaw wave flying?

Not sure of the current UK rules, but my Gold altitude ascent at Aboyne in 1978 involved a 4000ft cloud climb, exiting through the top to 15000MSL. I had some additional thermal climbs before that flight, but not a lot. The rules were quite simple and cloud flying was still allowed in UK contests during the mid-1990's. Again not sure of current rules and practices.

That said, a very experienced UK pilot perished during his second cloud ascent of the day. He got upset in the cloud and was knocked unconscious during the ensuing tumble, never to recover or exit the glider.

Frank Whiteley

son_of_flubber

February 25th 13, 11:10 PM

> "son_of_flubber" wrote in message
> > snip ...Why not equip gliders (with a turn and bank indicator) and pilots
> > (with training) to safely handle a few minutes of cloud flying if it is a
> > non-zero possibility

On Monday, February 25, 2013 10:50:52 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
> That's a pretty naive question.

Pretty much ALL of my questions are naive due to my lack of much experience and training. It's good for me to reminded of that from time to time. Thanks for your answer.

Dan Marotta

February 26th 13, 12:04 AM

I meant no disrespect with my reply and I hope none was taken.

Way back when, I tried the "benign spiral" in my LS-6a. I found it to be
dynamically unstable in pitch and, after a few cycles without touching the
stick, it was ready to loop or break Vne.

I know another glider pilot who told me that he entered a cumulus cloud in a
1-26, had a great climb, and flew out the side of the cloud. He tried it
again and came out the bottom of the cloud inverted. He was an Air Force
fighter pilot so unusual attitudes were no stranger to him.

It can be done, but it can also cause a bent aircraft. It's just not worth
it to me so I'll keep my eyes open for opportunities to get drawn into a
cloud or caught on top and avoid them.

"son_of_flubber" > wrote in message
...
>> "son_of_flubber" wrote in message
>> > snip ...Why not equip gliders (with a turn and bank indicator) and
>> > pilots
>> > (with training) to safely handle a few minutes of cloud flying if it is
>> > a
>> > non-zero possibility
>
> On Monday, February 25, 2013 10:50:52 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> That's a pretty naive question.
>
> Pretty much ALL of my questions are naive due to my lack of much
> experience and training. It's good for me to reminded of that from time
> to time. Thanks for your answer.

Bill D

February 26th 13, 02:41 AM

On Monday, February 25, 2013 5:04:31 PM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:

> Way back when, I tried the "benign spiral" in my LS-6a. I found it to be
>
> dynamically unstable in pitch and, after a few cycles without touching the
>
> stick, it was ready to loop or break Vne.

Did you use full dive brakes?

Alan[_6_]

February 26th 13, 06:11 AM

In article > son_of_flubber > writes:
>> "son_of_flubber" wrote in message
>> > snip ...Why not equip gliders (with a turn and bank indicator) and pilots
>> > (with training) to safely handle a few minutes of cloud flying if it is a
>> > non-zero possibility
>
>On Monday, February 25, 2013 10:50:52 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> That's a pretty naive question.
>
>Pretty much ALL of my questions are naive due to my lack of much experience and training. It's good for me to reminded of that from time to time. Thanks for your answer.

I would agree and disagree with Dan about this. Obvious reasons
include expense (gyros are expensive), weight, and power.

The training would probably be a big deal as well -- the single
engine private pilot requirement is for 3 hours of flight training
in manuvering solely by reference to instruments. Even so, the
record of accidents after non-instrument rated pilots wander into
weather is not good.

I think that few would want to mandate these instruments be in
gliders.

On the other hand, I have read postings describing sudden rain
encounters that forced a pilot to suddenly and unexpectedly have
to fly by instrument reference, in conditions where visibility
had been substantial (perhaps 15 miles) a few instants before.
I can see where a running gyro instrument in the panel could be
a useful safety instrument for the glider pilot who was also an
instrument competent airplane pilot.

I would not want to see such be required, but it pains me to
see situations where such capability would be disallowed.

Alan

Mike the Strike

February 26th 13, 01:55 PM

Years ago, in a country where cloud flying was legal, I got caught above a layer of low cloud that formed suddenly near a thunderstorm gust front. I descended through the cloud with full brakes, keeping the wings level with the aid of a gyro turn and bank. It was stressful and quite a hairy descent! I was familiar enough with the instrument to survive the encounter, but in the succeeding 30 years flying I have avoided making the same mistake. I would counsel other VFR pilots to avoid this exposure to unnecessary risk..

Mike

son_of_flubber

February 26th 13, 02:55 PM

On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 1:11:34 AM UTC-5, Alan wrote:

> I would agree and disagree with Dan about this. Obvious reasons
> include expense (gyros are expensive), weight, and power.

Here is a relatively inexpensive, low-maintenance, non-gyro based, and low power consuming Turn and Bank Indicator (that claims to be much easier to use than the old style).

http://www.trutrakflightsystems.com/products/Pictorial_Turn_and_Bank.html

Bill D

February 26th 13, 04:14 PM

On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 7:55:05 AM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 1:11:34 AM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>
>
>
> > I would agree and disagree with Dan about this. Obvious reasons
>
> > include expense (gyros are expensive), weight, and power.
>
>
>
> Here is a relatively inexpensive, low-maintenance, non-gyro based, and low power consuming Turn and Bank Indicator (that claims to be much easier to use than the old style).
>
>
>
> http://www.trutrakflightsystems.com/products/Pictorial_Turn_and_Bank.html

I haven't used the Tru-Track but I have a lot of "hood time" with old fashioned partial-panel "needle-ball-airspeed-clock-compass" flying including unusual attitude recovery. Using a T&B and ASI to maintain aircraft control is a difficult skill to acquire and just as difficult to maintain. That said, given that a pilot is highly trained and very current, it does work.

However, there is a difference between airplanes and gliders WRT the T&B. An airplane T&B displays a "standard rate turn" (2 minutes per 360 turn) as two needle widths. (Needle on the "doghouse" for the old guys.) That's 6 times too sensitive for a glider where the typical turn rate is 20 seconds per turn. Turns to a heading are much easier with an airplanes slow turn rate.

Another special problem for glider pilots is we learn and practice a sort of "seat-of-the-pants" flying. However, instrument flying is the polar opposite where one must completely ignore all kinetic and vestibular "feelings" and totally commit to believing the instruments even when every fiber in your your body is screaming the instruments are wrong - and your body WILL scream at you. Saying the "mind plays tricks" is a huge understatement.

Real single-pilot, partial-panel instrument flying is a deadly serious business not to be undertaken lightly. That's why pilots without the training and currency will almost always lose control of the aircraft as soon as visual references are lost.

What concerns me most about this thread is the emphasis on instruments themselves and not the training required to use them. Training is the key.

Dan Marotta

February 26th 13, 04:47 PM

"Bill D" > wrote in message
...
> On Monday, February 25, 2013 5:04:31 PM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
>
>> Way back when, I tried the "benign spiral" in my LS-6a. I found it to be
>>
>> dynamically unstable in pitch and, after a few cycles without touching
>> the
>>
>> stick, it was ready to loop or break Vne.
>
> Did you use full dive brakes?

To tell the truth, I don't recall - probably not. I think I used the
published (in Soaring) procedure but I don't remember if it called for full
dive brakes.

Dan Marotta

February 26th 13, 04:52 PM

Gyros are not disallowed except in competition (in the USA, at least). I
have a functional J-8 attitude indicator in my hangar but it's too heavy and
power hungry to install in my panel. Not to mention that I've already
stated my firm intention to stay out of clouds.

I'd be a lot happier with the attitude indicator than I am with the TruTrak.
I'm not at all impressed with it.

"Alan" > wrote in message
...
> In article >
> son_of_flubber > writes:
>>> "son_of_flubber" wrote in message
>>> > snip ...Why not equip gliders (with a turn and bank indicator) and
>>> > pilots
>>> > (with training) to safely handle a few minutes of cloud flying if it
>>> > is a
>>> > non-zero possibility
>>
>>On Monday, February 25, 2013 10:50:52 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
>>> That's a pretty naive question.
>>
>>Pretty much ALL of my questions are naive due to my lack of much
>>experience and training. It's good for me to reminded of that from time
>>to time. Thanks for your answer.
>
>
> I would agree and disagree with Dan about this. Obvious reasons
> include expense (gyros are expensive), weight, and power.
>
> The training would probably be a big deal as well -- the single
> engine private pilot requirement is for 3 hours of flight training
> in manuvering solely by reference to instruments. Even so, the
> record of accidents after non-instrument rated pilots wander into
> weather is not good.
>
> I think that few would want to mandate these instruments be in
> gliders.
>
> On the other hand, I have read postings describing sudden rain
> encounters that forced a pilot to suddenly and unexpectedly have
> to fly by instrument reference, in conditions where visibility
> had been substantial (perhaps 15 miles) a few instants before.
> I can see where a running gyro instrument in the panel could be
> a useful safety instrument for the glider pilot who was also an
> instrument competent airplane pilot.
>
> I would not want to see such be required, but it pains me to
> see situations where such capability would be disallowed.
>
> Alan

Dan Marotta

February 26th 13, 04:55 PM

That's what's in my panel. Anybody want to give me $400 for it? It's been
in the panel for less than a year and has less than 30 minutes power up
time. Comes with harness, on-off switch, and connector.

"son_of_flubber" > wrote in message
...
> On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 1:11:34 AM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>
>> I would agree and disagree with Dan about this. Obvious reasons
>> include expense (gyros are expensive), weight, and power.
>
> Here is a relatively inexpensive, low-maintenance, non-gyro based, and low
> power consuming Turn and Bank Indicator (that claims to be much easier to
> use than the old style).
>
> http://www.trutrakflightsystems.com/products/Pictorial_Turn_and_Bank.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Dan Marotta

February 26th 13, 04:58 PM

Good description. Well said!

"Bill D" > wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 7:55:05 AM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 1:11:34 AM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>
>
>
> > I would agree and disagree with Dan about this. Obvious reasons
>
> > include expense (gyros are expensive), weight, and power.
>
>
>
> Here is a relatively inexpensive, low-maintenance, non-gyro based, and low
> power consuming Turn and Bank Indicator (that claims to be much easier to
> use than the old style).
>
>
>
> http://www.trutrakflightsystems.com/products/Pictorial_Turn_and_Bank.html

I haven't used the Tru-Track but I have a lot of "hood time" with old
fashioned partial-panel "needle-ball-airspeed-clock-compass" flying
including unusual attitude recovery. Using a T&B and ASI to maintain
aircraft control is a difficult skill to acquire and just as difficult to
maintain. That said, given that a pilot is highly trained and very
current, it does work.

However, there is a difference between airplanes and gliders WRT the T&B.
An airplane T&B displays a "standard rate turn" (2 minutes per 360 turn) as
two needle widths. (Needle on the "doghouse" for the old guys.) That's 6
times too sensitive for a glider where the typical turn rate is 20 seconds
per turn. Turns to a heading are much easier with an airplanes slow turn
rate.

Another special problem for glider pilots is we learn and practice a sort of
"seat-of-the-pants" flying. However, instrument flying is the polar
opposite where one must completely ignore all kinetic and vestibular
"feelings" and totally commit to believing the instruments even when every
fiber in your your body is screaming the instruments are wrong - and your
body WILL scream at you. Saying the "mind plays tricks" is a huge
understatement.

Real single-pilot, partial-panel instrument flying is a deadly serious
business not to be undertaken lightly. That's why pilots without the
training and currency will almost always lose control of the aircraft as
soon as visual references are lost.

What concerns me most about this thread is the emphasis on instruments
themselves and not the training required to use them. Training is the key.

Bill D

February 26th 13, 05:14 PM

On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:47:24 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> "Bill D" wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Monday, February 25, 2013 5:04:31 PM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> Way back when, I tried the "benign spiral" in my LS-6a. I found it to be
>
> >>
>
> >> dynamically unstable in pitch and, after a few cycles without touching
>
> >> the
>
> >>
>
> >> stick, it was ready to loop or break Vne.
>
> >
>
> > Did you use full dive brakes?
>
>
>
> To tell the truth, I don't recall - probably not. I think I used the
>
> published (in Soaring) procedure but I don't remember if it called for full
>
> dive brakes.

My understanding of the "benign spiral" is the air brakes MUST be open to stabilize the glider and prevent over speed.

Evan Ludeman[_4_]

February 26th 13, 05:52 PM

On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 12:14:15 PM UTC-5, Bill D wrote:

> My understanding of the "benign spiral" is the air brakes MUST be open to stabilize the glider and prevent over speed.

Generally, you want to make the glider as dirty as possible (gear, flaps, spoilers). The point is a descent, after all. Trim probably full aft. A little top rudder can be used to "tune" the turn rate and speed. I've convinced myself of two things w.r.t. the benign spiral in my ship: 1) it will probably work in reasonably smooth air as long as I don't pick up a load of ice, although it's going to get *really* disconcerting when the asi fails due to plugged pitot or static 2) I absolutely do not ever want to be in the position of having to do this for-real through a cloud deck, especially in NH in October (again, ice).

Evan Ludeman / T8

soartech[_2_]

February 26th 13, 06:16 PM

> * I would agree and disagree with Dan about this. *Obvious reasons
> include expense (gyros are expensive), weight, and power.

Just so incorrect information does not get propagated I have to
correct this statement.
Gyros are no longer expensive (now less than $10), heavy (< 1 oz.) or
power hungry.
Solid state gyros are now found in most "smart" phones and many other
places.
The old mechanical gyros are dead in the water (except for some very
specialized applications.)

Peter von Tresckow

February 26th 13, 06:27 PM

"Dan Marotta" > wrote:
> Gyros are not disallowed except in competition (in the USA, at least). I
> have a functional J-8 attitude indicator in my hangar but it's too heavy
> and power hungry to install in my panel. Not to mention that I've
> already stated my firm intention to stay out of clouds.
>
> I'd be a lot happier with the attitude indicator than I am with the
> TruTrak. I'm not at all impressed with it.
>
>
> "Alan" > wrote in message ...
>> In article > >
>> son_of_flubber > writes:
>>>> "son_of_flubber" wrote in message
>>>>> snip ...Why not equip gliders (with a turn and bank indicator) and >>> > pilots
>>>>> (with training) to safely handle a few minutes of cloud flying if it >>> > is a
>>>>> non-zero possibility
>>>
>>> On Monday, February 25, 2013 10:50:52 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
>>>> That's a pretty naive question.
>>>
>>> Pretty much ALL of my questions are naive due to my lack of much
>>> >>experience and training. It's good for me to reminded of that from
>>>>> time >>to time. Thanks for your answer.
>>
>>
>> I would agree and disagree with Dan about this. Obvious reasons
>> include expense (gyros are expensive), weight, and power.
>>
>> The training would probably be a big deal as well -- the single
>> engine private pilot requirement is for 3 hours of flight training
>> in manuvering solely by reference to instruments. Even so, the
>> record of accidents after non-instrument rated pilots wander into
>> weather is not good.
>>
>> I think that few would want to mandate these instruments be in
>> gliders.
>>
>> On the other hand, I have read postings describing sudden rain
>> encounters that forced a pilot to suddenly and unexpectedly have
>> to fly by instrument reference, in conditions where visibility
>> had been substantial (perhaps 15 miles) a few instants before.
>> I can see where a running gyro instrument in the panel could be
>> a useful safety instrument for the glider pilot who was also an
>> instrument competent airplane pilot.
>>
>> I would not want to see such be required, but it pains me to
>> see situations where such capability would be disallowed.
>>
>> Alan

Dan just out of curiosity, what about the trutrack don't you like???

Pete

Papa3[_2_]

February 26th 13, 08:50 PM

On Sunday, February 24, 2013 4:42:29 PM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:
>
> It seems a little out of touch with reality that gliders frequently put themselves in the position where they might need to descend through clouds and yet they typically do not have the training or carry the instruments to handle that situation. Is this because the FAR were written before it was common for gliders to fly in wave? If we brought this anomaly to the attention of the FAA, are we afraid that they will outlaw wave flying?

Nope. In over 25 years of East Coast soaring, I've averaged 2-3 trips into the wave each year. Some more, some less. So, figure 50-75 excursions up above 10K. In all those flights, I've never been trapped on top - not even close. As others have mentioned, part of the training is to recognize when this is happening. If you insist on climbing up through a tiny hole or staying up when the cloud deck is rapidly forming, then I guess it could happen. But, I'm not aware of a single person in our club (at one of the 3-4 most active wave sites in the east) where this has been an issue in the 20 years I've been a member. At least nobody has admitted it.

P3

son_of_flubber

February 26th 13, 10:46 PM

On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 11:14:14 AM UTC-5, Bill D wrote:

> However, there is a difference between airplanes and gliders WRT the T&B. An airplane T&B displays a "standard rate turn" (2 minutes per 360 turn) as two needle widths. (Needle on the "doghouse" for the old guys.) That's 6 times too sensitive for a glider where the typical turn rate is 20 seconds per turn. Turns to a heading are much easier with an airplanes slow turn rate.<

It's interesting to see how the TruTrak is marketed on the Cumulus website. He raises the "standard turn rate" issue.

http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/trutrak.htm

Bill D

February 26th 13, 10:54 PM

On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 3:46:37 PM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 11:14:14 AM UTC-5, Bill D wrote:
>
>
>
> > However, there is a difference between airplanes and gliders WRT the T&B. An airplane T&B displays a "standard rate turn" (2 minutes per 360 turn) as two needle widths. (Needle on the "doghouse" for the old guys.) That's 6 times too sensitive for a glider where the typical turn rate is 20 seconds per turn. Turns to a heading are much easier with an airplanes slow turn rate.<
>
>
>
> It's interesting to see how the TruTrak is marketed on the Cumulus website. He raises the "standard turn rate" issue.
>
>
>
> http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/trutrak.htm

I'm probably wrong saying 6 times too sensitive. A 1 minute T&B is the traditional glider instrument. However, think how large a 1 minute turn would be in a glider.

Don Johnstone[_4_]

February 26th 13, 11:03 PM

Just to answer a couple of questions

Cloud flying is permitted in Regional and National competitions in the UK
as I type. This may change.
The most common scenario for getting caught above cloud is when wave
flying. I set a waypoint on the GPS away from the high ground, deploy full
airbrake and trim to 55kts. From then on you can sit back and enjoy the
ride. I know this works in wave conditions where the air is smooth. I have
used it to descend in clear air, never had to use it for real. Everytime I
have tried it the glider has started to gently spiral but remains stable
as long as you keep your hands and feet clear of the controls. There is
little turbulence to disturb the glider until you are below the wave,
normally this means you are clear of cloud as well.
The glider I used was an ASW17 with the double paddle airbrake mod. Flaps
at +1 or zero

Dan Marotta

February 27th 13, 12:12 AM

I just don't have faith in it and the slip ball seems never to be centered.
Maybe I'm just out of practice... :-)

"Peter von Tresckow" > wrote in message
...
> "Dan Marotta" > wrote:
>> Gyros are not disallowed except in competition (in the USA, at least). I
>> have a functional J-8 attitude indicator in my hangar but it's too heavy
>> and power hungry to install in my panel. Not to mention that I've
>> already stated my firm intention to stay out of clouds.
>>
>> I'd be a lot happier with the attitude indicator than I am with the
>> TruTrak. I'm not at all impressed with it.
>>
>>
>> "Alan" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article > >
>>> son_of_flubber > writes:
>>>>> "son_of_flubber" wrote in message
>>>>>> snip ...Why not equip gliders (with a turn and bank indicator) and
>>>>>> >>> > pilots
>>>>>> (with training) to safely handle a few minutes of cloud flying if it
>>>>>> >>> > is a
>>>>>> non-zero possibility
>>>>
>>>> On Monday, February 25, 2013 10:50:52 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
>>>>> That's a pretty naive question.
>>>>
>>>> Pretty much ALL of my questions are naive due to my lack of much
>>>> >>experience and training. It's good for me to reminded of that from
>>>>>> time >>to time. Thanks for your answer.
>>>
>>>
>>> I would agree and disagree with Dan about this. Obvious reasons
>>> include expense (gyros are expensive), weight, and power.
>>>
>>> The training would probably be a big deal as well -- the single
>>> engine private pilot requirement is for 3 hours of flight training
>>> in manuvering solely by reference to instruments. Even so, the
>>> record of accidents after non-instrument rated pilots wander into
>>> weather is not good.
>>>
>>> I think that few would want to mandate these instruments be in
>>> gliders.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, I have read postings describing sudden rain
>>> encounters that forced a pilot to suddenly and unexpectedly have
>>> to fly by instrument reference, in conditions where visibility
>>> had been substantial (perhaps 15 miles) a few instants before.
>>> I can see where a running gyro instrument in the panel could be
>>> a useful safety instrument for the glider pilot who was also an
>>> instrument competent airplane pilot.
>>>
>>> I would not want to see such be required, but it pains me to
>>> see situations where such capability would be disallowed.
>>>
>>> Alan
>
> Dan just out of curiosity, what about the trutrack don't you like???
>
> Pete

Dan Marotta

February 27th 13, 12:20 AM

Maybe, just for kicks, I'll try that in my LAK-17a at the end of a wave
flight.

"Bill D" > wrote in message
...
> On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:47:24 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> "Bill D" wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > On Monday, February 25, 2013 5:04:31 PM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> >> Way back when, I tried the "benign spiral" in my LS-6a. I found it to
>> >> be
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> dynamically unstable in pitch and, after a few cycles without touching
>>
>> >> the
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> stick, it was ready to loop or break Vne.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Did you use full dive brakes?
>>
>>
>>
>> To tell the truth, I don't recall - probably not. I think I used the
>>
>> published (in Soaring) procedure but I don't remember if it called for
>> full
>>
>> dive brakes.
>
> My understanding of the "benign spiral" is the air brakes MUST be open to
> stabilize the glider and prevent over speed.

Jonathon May[_2_]

February 27th 13, 07:49 AM

At 00:20 27 February 2013, Dan Marotta wrote:
>Maybe, just for kicks, I'll try that in my LAK-17a at the end of a wave
>flight.
>
>
>"Bill D" wrote in message
...
>> On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:47:24 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
>>> "Bill D" wrote in message
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> > On Monday, February 25, 2013 5:04:31 PM UTC-7, Dan Marotta
wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> >> Way back when, I tried the "benign spiral" in my LS-6a. I found it
>to
>>> >> be
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> dynamically unstable in pitch and, after a few cycles without
>touching
>>>
>>> >> the
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> stick, it was ready to loop or break Vne.
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> > Did you use full dive brakes?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To tell the truth, I don't recall - probably not. I think I used the
>>>
>>> published (in Soaring) procedure but I don't remember if it called for

>>> full
>>>
>>> dive brakes.
>>
>> My understanding of the "benign spiral" is the air brakes MUST be open
to
>
>> stabilize the glider and prevent over speed.
>
A couple of years ago I was in a particulars UK comp called Enterprise I
was
enjoying the comp and making up the numbers and every one new Justin
Wills was going to win ,former world champion and he understands the
rules.
Could flying is permitted and I know Justin cloud flys because I watched
him
disappear above .Next day while grid squatting I made a point of looking at

Justin's panel ,no horizon but 2 turn and slip.
For the many non Brits Enterprise was set up 30 years or so ago as an
alternative to circuit racing ,the idea being to get as much out of the day
as is
possible and the following day Justin and the day winner do an extensive
debrief explaining the desitions they made both routing and met so we can
all
learn and make better desitions .I recommend looking at there web site and

you will be able to read the ethos more succinctly

I hate this spell checker.
>

Evan Ludeman[_4_]

February 27th 13, 05:56 PM

So what's the etiquette for cloud flying in comps? So here we are, four of us climbing happily at 4 kts under a great big towering cu, no more than 150 vertical feet of separation total. Conditions are poor up ahead but with another 3 or 4 thousand feet we can all make it to the finish with good speed and no further climbing. The first guy disappears into the fog. Now what? Just curious.

T8

Jonathon May[_2_]

February 27th 13, 06:48 PM

At 17:56 27 February 2013, Evan Ludeman wrote:
>So what's the etiquette for cloud flying in comps? So here we are, four
>of=
> us climbing happily at 4 kts under a great big towering cu, no more than
>1=
>50 vertical feet of separation total. Conditions are poor up ahead but
>wit=
>h another 3 or 4 thousand feet we can all make it to the finish with good
>s=
>peed and no further climbing. The first guy disappears into the fog.
Now
>=
>what? Just curious.
>
>T8
>
>
>As you will know from my post I bottled,and it is a historic fact there
was a
mid air in cloud in a worlds back in the 60's I think David Innes was one
it
was re written in sailplane and gliding about 10 years ago .As I said
enterprise is some what different so there is less chance you will be
gaggle
flying .
Some one will explain I am sure but you need to announce you intentions
and position on the comp frequency and change to cloud frequency and re
transmit and if you have more courage than me wait till they call clear
then
off you go.
Plonckers need not apply ,I consider anyone without a ATPL a ploncker.
>

Chris Nicholas[_2_]

February 27th 13, 08:53 PM

The UK procedure when cloud flying is not to enter from below if somebody else has climbed into it until there is at least 500 ft separation. Then each calls out altitude (amsl) periodically to maintain separation.

It seems to work. No collisions in cloud since this and other procedures were introduced.

FWIW, in my experience it is rare to be climbing in the same cloud as others anyway, but on the few occasions I have done it, it worked OK.

Chris N

[email protected]

February 27th 13, 08:59 PM

On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 3:53:37 PM UTC-5, Chris Nicholas wrote:
> The UK procedure when cloud flying is not to enter from below if somebody else has climbed into it until there is at least 500 ft separation. Then each calls out altitude (amsl) periodically to maintain separation. It seems to work. No collisions in cloud since this and other procedures were introduced. FWIW, in my experience it is rare to be climbing in the same cloud as others anyway, but on the few occasions I have done it, it worked OK. Chris N

How do you keep from getting hit by airplanes flying in the same cloud? Presumably IFR airplanes are flying in cloud.
Curious
UH

Chris Nicholas[_2_]

February 27th 13, 09:18 PM

Short answer, big sky, little (and very few) bullets in cloud.

PCAS can also be used.

So can radio to ATC when appropriate.

I have read that UK and USA airspace is different, so please excuse me if I tell you what you already know.

Most glider cloud climbing is on good thermal days with isolated cu, typically cloud base 4000’ or more, and in class G which covers most of the country. On such days, in class G, almost all GA (power) keeps well below cloud. Those that go as high as the cu tend to go round them, to avoid turbulence (i.e. our lift). Some go above the clouds, where we can’t get.

One area I use for cloud climbing is near a military complex. I often call them to see if they have traffic at cloud levels near me (never have yet) before switching to glider cloud flying frequency. And I have PCAS (as well as Flarm).

There have been only 5 UK collisions between gliders and unrelated power since 1970. 3 were in gliding circuit areas, the other 2 well below cloud base in good VMC. (Both the latter were power flying into the glider – one from behind, the other from below when aerobatting.) Airprox data also show all glider/power incidents in VMC and usually well away from clouds.

There have been far more glider/glider collisions – and we all take that risk, albeit mitigating as best we can. But that is another story.

Chris N

Bart[_4_]

February 28th 13, 06:59 PM

On Feb 25, 7:50*am, "Dan Marotta" > wrote:
> The average VFR pilot has "178 seconds to
> live" after an inadvertent trip into IMC, according to the Air Safety
> Foundation.

Thread hijack!

That number (187 seconds) can be found all over the Internet and is
usually not questioned. But, where does it come from? Oh, Air Safety
Foundation. Again - where did they get it?

While, as we all know, 67.23% of all statistics are made up, this one
is not. Some digging uncovers a document titled "180-degree turn
experiment" by Leslie A. Bryan, Jesse W. Stonecipher and Karl Aron,
all from the University of Illinois.

The document describes an experiment, where non-instrument rated
pilots flew - or attempted to - in simulated instrument conditions.
All of them eventually lost control, and the average time was 178
seconds. Then, after some instruction all the test subjects managed to
"survive."

So far so good. That's consistent with what we have heard. So why am I
even writing this? Well, fortunately the document is nicely written
and tells us a lot about the experiment, choice of tests subjects and
equipment.
A couple of things stand out:

- They used a Bonanza C-35. The choice of a demanding aircraft was
intentional.
- The participants in the study were chosen to "have had a mininum of
experience in the Beechcraft Bonanza."
- They were not allowed to use IFR instruments. This is important, so
I am going to write it again: no artifical horizon, no turn
coordinator. They had "...equipment specified in Civil Air Regulation
43.30 for visual flight rules, plus a turn indicator."

So, what we have is a nice study that tells us absolutely _nothing_
about expected performance of a non-instrument rated pilot in IMC with
IFR instruments available.

Now, I am not trying to say that with AH we can all fly in clouds and
expect to come back unscratched. I am only pointing out that one piece
of information we thought was relevant, is not. The accident
statistics, on the other hand,
are what they are and remain relevant.

To anyone who considers installing AH as a "safety equipment" in a
glider, I suggest going up with an instructor in a Cessna and putting
foggles on. This, by the way, is what I did.

And do not worry. Spring is coming!

Bart

Tony[_5_]

February 28th 13, 07:03 PM

On Thursday, February 28, 2013 12:59:43 PM UTC-6, Bart wrote:
> On Feb 25, 7:50*am, "Dan Marotta" > wrote: > The average VFR pilot has "178 seconds to > live" after an inadvertent trip into IMC, according to the Air Safety > Foundation. Thread hijack! That number (187 seconds) can be found all over the Internet and is usually not questioned. But, where does it come from? Oh, Air Safety Foundation. Again - where did they get it? While, as we all know, 67.23% of all statistics are made up, this one is not. Some digging uncovers a document titled "180-degree turn experiment" by Leslie A. Bryan, Jesse W. Stonecipher and Karl Aron, all from the University of Illinois. The document describes an experiment, where non-instrument rated pilots flew - or attempted to - in simulated instrument conditions. All of them eventually lost control, and the average time was 178 seconds. Then, after some instruction all the test subjects managed to "survive." So far so good. That's consistent with what we have heard. So why am I even writing this? Well, fortunately the document is nicely written and tells us a lot about the experiment, choice of tests subjects and equipment. A couple of things stand out: - They used a Bonanza C-35. The choice of a demanding aircraft was intentional. - The participants in the study were chosen to "have had a mininum of experience in the Beechcraft Bonanza." - They were not allowed to use IFR instruments. This is important, so I am going to write it again: no artifical horizon, no turn coordinator. They had "...equipment specified in Civil Air Regulation 43.30 for visual flight rules, plus a turn indicator." So, what we have is a nice study that tells us absolutely _nothing_ about expected performance of a non-instrument rated pilot in IMC with IFR instruments available. Now, I am not trying to say that with AH we can all fly in clouds and expect to come back unscratched. I am only pointing out that one piece of information we thought was relevant, is not. The accident statistics, on the other hand, are what they are and remain relevant. To anyone who considers installing AH as a "safety equipment" in a glider, I suggest going up with an instructor in a Cessna and putting foggles on. This, by the way, is what I did. And do not worry. Spring is coming! Bart

you know Bart...i bet if you and the Gapa Geezer would be a needle and ball in the PW-2 you could probably get a little further from the airport. You could run it off a venturi too since that really wouldn't add significant drag or hurt the performance any more, and then you wouldn't have to carry around a heavy battery.