In wave, in blue hole at cloud level, hole closes, in IMC, then what?

[son_of_flubber]

So I'm flying in a blue hole in wave lift of 5 m/s, trimmed to 50 knots, in clear air with a cloud layer upwind and downwind, cloud top above and cloud base below. Suddenly I find myself in IMC. What are my options?

My glider is capable of benign spiral. I open the spoilers, (already trimmed to 50 knots) and let go of stick and rudder. Then I mentally rehearse my bail out procedure and expect to come out below the cloud (or possibly above). It seems like I should decisively and without hesitation initiate the spiral ASAP, while the glider is still relatively level and at cruising airspeed.

Suggestions?

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 7:08:36 AM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:

> Suggestions?

Flaps 90, and grind out of the bottom of the cloud at 50 kts.

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

Hmmmmmm, The spiral dive is exactly what you don't want! Think about it, your in the soup, cranked over holding your spiral and the airspeed keeps building. What do you do? Pull back to slow it down, right? There is a name for that situation, its called a dead-man-spiral.
I'm for pulling the spoilers, trim for 65 and turn loose. Try it next time you have extra altitude. I once logged something like 30 minutes in my H-301 Libelle (spoilers closed), she never went over 45 degrees and I hadn't touched anything for 30 minutes.
JJ

[WAVEGURU]

No problem in my 2-32, with dive brakes that won't let me go over VNE, but it didn't work at all in my Jantar 2A.

Boggs

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 9:55:15 AM UTC-5, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
>
>
> Flaps 90, and grind out of the bottom of the cloud at 50 kts.

Love my 90 degree flaps! You have to push to keep it up at 50 knots!

[Dan Marotta]

In his original post he said "benign spiral"...

My Mosquito had terminal velocity limiting trailing edge brakes.
My ASW-19 did a lovely benign spiral.
My LS-6a was divergent in pitch and would quickly go out of control
without positive inputs.

Haven't tried it in my LAK-17a... Must remember to give it a try at the
end of my next flight!

On 4/8/2015 9:04 AM, JJ Sinclair wrote:
> Hmmmmmm, The spiral dive is exactly what you don't want! Think about it, your in the soup, cranked over holding your spiral and the airspeed keeps building. What do you do? Pull back to slow it down, right? There is a name for that situation, its called a dead-man-spiral.
> I'm for pulling the spoilers, trim for 65 and turn loose. Try it next time you have extra altitude. I once logged something like 30 minutes in my H-301 Libelle (spoilers closed), she never went over 45 degrees and I hadn't touched anything for 30 minutes.
> JJ

--
Dan Marotta

[ND]

On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 11:04:10 AM UTC-4, JJ Sinclair wrote:
> Hmmmmmm, The spiral dive is exactly what you don't want! Think about it, your in the soup, cranked over holding your spiral and the airspeed keeps building. What do you do? Pull back to slow it down, right? There is a name for that situation, its called a dead-man-spiral.
> I'm for pulling the spoilers, trim for 65 and turn loose. Try it next time you have extra altitude. I once logged something like 30 minutes in my H-301 Libelle (spoilers closed), she never went over 45 degrees and I hadn't touched anything for 30 minutes.
> JJ

HOLY CRAP!

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Wed, 08 Apr 2015 07:08:34 -0700, son_of_flubber wrote:

> My glider is capable of benign spiral. I open the spoilers, (already
> trimmed to 50 knots) and let go of stick and rudder.
>
I started a cloud-flying course last year and one of the first things we
were told was that, if you loose it in cloud, leave the trim where it
was, fully open the brakes and use feet and hand(s) to keep all controls
central, i.e. DON'T let go of the stick or take your feed off the pedals.

This takes advantage of the fact that most gliders are stable with brakes
open and controls centralised and not flapping about. Don't forget that
if the glider is pulling any G the stick can flop over and move elevator
and/or ailerons away from neutral if you're not holding it central.

Something similar might also occur in strong turbulence. If the stick is
raked or Z-shaped like a Libelle's, then its CG is behind the pivot, so
if you're pulling either positive or negative G than the offset stick
weight will tend to increase that if you're not holding the stick to stop
that happening.

A bit later in the season I did indeed loose it when LK8000 sounded an
airspace warning during a cloud climb and I manoeuvred too fast when
trying to avoid breaking into the bottom of the airspace. So, I did as
I'd been told and opened the brakes and then held the stick central and
the rudder straight. The glider, my Standard Libelle so fitted with weak
brakes, zoomed around a bit but didn't pull noticeable G or exceed Vne.
In fact I didn't notice it even exceeding Va. It came out the bottom of
the cloud more or less upright, so returning to straight and level was
perfectly straight-forward and didn't cost me more than 100 feet of
height.

> Suggestions?
>
Do as I did if you don't pop out of the cloud fairly soon: this assumes
you were cruising in a straight line when the cloud got you and trimmed
more or less at Vbestglide. Open the brakes and centralise controls
immediately if you see the airspeed changing because that means you've
been upset by turbulence.

You'll have time to think about bail-out procedures later when you're
sitting, holding the controls centralised and waiting to exit the cloud.


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

[son_of_flubber]

On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 11:22:24 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
> In his original post he said "benign spiral"...

Right. Benign. The thing that is somewhat new to me is the possible desirability of initiating the benign spiral promptly, before the glider departs from a normal attitude.

[[email protected]]

My old Grob Speed Astir II (G104) had a benign spiral mode that was actually outlined in the flight manual. It worked.

My LS-8 will not hold a benign spiral. It begins a series of pitch downs and pitch ups that just keep gaining in amplitude and airspeed. I have not tried holding centralized controls but I can easily see where the plane would start banking due to turbulance and then you enter the death spiral.

Because of this, my new instruments have an artificial horizon (S80).

[Ramy[_2_]]

The more common scenario that broke gliders few times in wave is that you are already flying close to VNE when you find yourself in a cloud since you already trying to escape. It can be a meter of seconds until you loose you wings. What do you do? Do you pull full spoilers at VNE? Or do you slow down first and zoom deeper in the cloud before opening spoilers? The 27 manual doesn't specifically says don't open spoiler at VNE but the common wisdom says don't.

Ramy

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

On 4/8/2015 8:08 AM, son_of_flubber wrote:
> So I'm flying in a blue hole in wave lift of 5 m/s, trimmed to 50 knots, in
> clear air with a cloud layer upwind and downwind, cloud top above and cloud
> base below. Suddenly I find myself in IMC. What are my options?
>
> My glider is capable of benign spiral. I open the spoilers, (already
> trimmed to 50 knots) and let go of stick and rudder. Then I mentally
> rehearse my bail out procedure and expect to come out below the cloud (or
> possibly above). It seems like I should decisively and without hesitation
> initiate the spiral ASAP, while the glider is still relatively level and at
> cruising airspeed.
>
> Suggestions?
>

In re Bob K.'s and Steve L.'s comments elsewhere on this branch, "Ha ha ha. Oh
the knowing joy of those familiar with 90-degree landing flaps (and I'm one of
'em)!!!" Regrettably (in subsequently broken ship/traumatized pilot terms),
that particular religious war was lost long, long ago.

An argument can be reasonably made that - in "tribal knowledge" terms - there
is nothing new to be learned from the Easter Sunday Reno accident. That said,
I understand that in *individual* terms there is *always* something to gleaned
from such things...and I hope by such gleaning some may avoid finding
themselves in similar dire circumstances.

As first-hand-experience(s) have noted in another branch of this thread,
apparently not all gliders have a "you can comfortably bet your life on it
being 'a good enough' benign spiral capability," that I would willingly bet
*my* life on it. That said, if - for whatever reason - Joe Glider Pilot
develops a sense that unwanted IMC is in a flight's future, I sure hope he's
done-through-practice-beforehand what he intends to do soon! My own
spoilered-ship preference would be to initiate the 'save your butt disaster
plan' *before* loss of visual conditions, but that's just me. My guess is
Martin G.'s post-IMC-entry advice is generically sensible, too.

As always, the devil is in the details, and YMMV...

Bob W.

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 14:08 08 April 2015, son_of_flubber wrote:
>So I'm flying in a blue hole in wave lift of 5 m/s, trimmed to 50 knots,
>in=
> clear air with a cloud layer upwind and downwind, cloud top above and
>clou=
>d base below. Suddenly I find myself in IMC. What are my options?
>
>My glider is capable of benign spiral. I open the spoilers, (already
>trimme=
>d to 50 knots) and let go of stick and rudder. Then I mentally rehearse
>my=
> bail out procedure and expect to come out below the cloud (or possibly
>abo=
>ve). It seems like I should decisively and without hesitation initiate
>the=
> spiral ASAP, while the glider is still relatively level and at cruising
>ai=
>rspeed.
>
>Suggestions?

Turn on the turn and slip/AH and descend to the waypoint, well clear of
hills, I have created just in case the gap closes.
>

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Find an instructor with much wave experience and ask them to help you come up with a plan and some training. Some gliders will do a benign spiral well, others will not. Get some benign spiral training then try it in your glider to see under what conditions it will or will not have a benign spiral.. Get an instant on AH. I would be very hesitant to open the spoilers at high speed, there was a discussion about that a month or two ago. I have flown many complex aircraft and I think one thing gliders pilots do not do very well is to seek recurrent training from a qualified instructor. When I was actively flying gliders I trained every year with an instructor, spins, spiral dive and I always asked them to surprise me with something we had not covered before (just now getting back into gliding after a long absence). In the other complex type aircraft I trained every 3 to 6 months. Most glider pilots only get recurrent training every biannual. I like to know what to do during an emergency rather than figure it out at the time.

I have experienced multiple inflight emergencies and in all but one case my training took over and no thought was involved, just muscle memory. However, the case I had not trained for was one throttle cable coming loose on final with the engine immediately going to full throttle. My very first thought was "we never covered this in training". It would be best just to rely on muscle memory. As a side note, it was a big cabin class twin and after a moment of thought I feathered the engine and continued to landing on the one good engine.

In climbing we always said plan for the worse, hope for the best. Training, training. Maybe one of the experienced legends of the sport can comment here and add guidance.

One more thought. In the war bird community we had hanger flying sessions were we talked about the emergencies we experienced and how we handled them.. These were priceless sessions! I learned what other pilots did in situations I had never thought of. Maybe we should start a hanger flying session on this site!

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Wed, 08 Apr 2015 11:41:01 -0600, Bob Whelan wrote:

> In re Bob K.'s and Steve L.'s comments elsewhere on this branch, "Ha ha
> ha. Oh the knowing joy of those familiar with 90-degree landing flaps
> (and I'm one of 'em)!!!" Regrettably (in subsequently broken
> ship/traumatized pilot terms), that particular religious war was lost
> long, long ago.
>
Around 2004 there was another benign spiral thread which caused me to be
a bit of experimenting in an ASW-20. I found that, in calm evening air
trimmed for best glide (57 kts) and zero flap (position 3) and flying
straight, it slowly developed a 25 second phugoid oscillation with an
associated +/- 5kt speed oscillation.

I also tried for a benign spiral: zero flap, wheel down and brakes out,
same trimmed speed and going hands free after setting up a 20-30 degree
bank. After even half a circle the bank angle had increased, the nose had
dropped the speed was increasing. I never let it go beyond that point and
concluded that the ASW-20 doesn't have a benign spiral.

I haven't tried either experiment with the Libelle but should do so this
season, as its always good stuff to know. BTW, my H.201 is s/n 82, so it
dates from before the move to the B series, so it has balsa sandwich
flying surface skins, the small tailplane and upper and lower surface
brakes.


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

[Tango Eight]

On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 3:02:26 PM UTC-4, Martin Gregorie wrote:

> concluded that the ASW-20 doesn't have a benign spiral.

It's ship/setup dependent.

In my 20B, what works is landing flaps, gear down, spoilers full out. My CG is pretty far back.

Round and round and round at about 50 kts. Top rudder makes it even more stable.

T8's hot tip for partial panel descents: get the glider dirty (i.e. spoilers, flaps, gear). It's about 1000x easier to fly a dirty glider on instruments than a clean one.

Evan Ludeman / T8

[Matt Herron Jr.]

any possibility to maintain a heading using the moving map while in the clouds to prevent the start of a spiral dive?

[Tango Eight]

On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 3:33:10 PM UTC-4, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
> any possibility to maintain a heading using the moving map while in the clouds to prevent the start of a spiral dive?

That's what Bob Spielman tried to do.

-T8

[Darryl Ramm]

On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 12:33:10 PM UTC-7, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
> any possibility to maintain a heading using the moving map while in the clouds to prevent the start of a spiral dive?

And as you slow down in strong wave you can start flying sideways/backwards and the moving map or fake instrument it is driving "topples". If you want to rely on instruments, they need to be real inertial instrument (and lots of training/practice) in an environment like that.

The near-VNE speed that Ramy described is the eater of gliders in this scenario in strong Wave.

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

On 4/8/2015 1:28 PM, Tango Eight wrote:
<Snip...>

> T8's hot tip for partial panel descents: get the glider dirty (i.e.
> spoilers, flaps, gear). It's about 1000x easier to fly a dirty glider on
> instruments than a clean one.

I lack the experience to express an informed opinion about that
paragraph-ending statement (though I'd wager a 6-pack it's correct), but will
readily second the idea of adding all the disposable drag your glider has as
being a Great Idea if/when things get visually dodgy. It's hard to get more
stable than a glider with so much drag it can't do anything but slowly and
stably fall to earth like a featherweight shuttlecock, regardless of what Joe
Pilot might attempt with the stick.

Short list of gliders which qualify follows:

Bob W.

P.S. For any offended HP drivers out there, please note I qualified things
with "slowly and *stably* fall to earth...". My HP 14 fell to earth quite
slowly and UNstably with full flaps and no hands/feet on the controls, and
never exceeded ~50 knots regardless of any of the "unusual attitudes" it found
while bouncing between the tail-high/nose-low state and "various sideways
states" as it alternated between stalled with full flaps and not stalled with
full flaps. To avoid stalling, one merely had to hold sufficient forward stick
to maintain 40 knots or so. Quite instructive...

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

On 4/8/2015 1:00 PM, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:

<Good stuff snipped...>
> In climbing we always said plan for the worse, hope for the best. Training,
> training. Maybe one of the experienced legends of the sport can comment
> here and add guidance.
>
> One more thought. In the war bird community we had hangar flying sessions
> where we talked about the emergencies we experienced and how we handled
> them. These were priceless sessions! I learned what other pilots did in
> situations I had never thought of. Maybe we should start a hangar flying
> session on this site!
>

From the numerous-n-rapidly-arriving comments related to Bob Spielman's
IMC-related bailout, I'd guess the situation hits close to home for many
thoughtful gliderpilots...

I'll second the idea of Real Worth being found in hangar flying sessions, even
if only the unvoiced thought, "You gotta be kidding!" Thanks to everyone who's
shared so far!

Bob W.

[Jonathon May[_2_]]

At 19:48 08 April 2015, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 12:33:10 PM UTC-7, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
>> any possibility to maintain a heading using the moving map while in the
>c=
>louds to prevent the start of a spiral dive?
>
>And as you slow down in strong wave you can start flying
>sideways/backwards=
> and the moving map or fake instrument it is driving "topples". If you
>want=
> to rely on instruments, they need to be real inertial instrument (and
>lots=
> of training/practice) in an environment like that.
>
>The near-VNE speed that Ramy described is the eater of gliders in this
>scen=
>ario in strong Wave.
>
I Accept dirty as a good idea because the shorter the time in cloud the
less
chance of messing it up.
But is it worth deploying the turbo but not starting it ,because with the
brakes out and gear down and turbo up the drag will be enormous,it may
even to keep you below VNE.
However you would want to know what the spin characteristics are in that
configuration.
Any thoughts?
Jon

[son_of_flubber]

On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 5:00:06 PM UTC-4, Jonathon May wrote:

> But is it worth deploying the turbo but not starting it ,because with the
> brakes out and gear down and turbo up the drag will be enormous,it may
> even to keep you below VNE.
> However you would want to know what the spin characteristics are in that
> configuration.
> Any thoughts?
> Jon

What does the maker of your plane say about doing aerobatics (a spin for instance) with the engine boom deployed? The centrifugal force about the axis of the fuselage might be a factor.

[Ramy[_2_]]

On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 1:30:23 PM UTC-7, Bob Whelan wrote:
> On 4/8/2015 1:28 PM, Tango Eight wrote:
> <Snip...>
>
> > T8's hot tip for partial panel descents: get the glider dirty (i.e.
> > spoilers, flaps, gear). It's about 1000x easier to fly a dirty glider on
> > instruments than a clean one.
>
> I lack the experience to express an informed opinion about that
> paragraph-ending statement (though I'd wager a 6-pack it's correct), but will
> readily second the idea of adding all the disposable drag your glider has as
> being a Great Idea if/when things get visually dodgy. It's hard to get more
> stable than a glider with so much drag it can't do anything but slowly and
> stably fall to earth like a featherweight shuttlecock, regardless of what Joe
> Pilot might attempt with the stick.
>
> Short list of gliders which qualify follows:
>
> Bob W.
>
> P.S. For any offended HP drivers out there, please note I qualified things
> with "slowly and *stably* fall to earth...". My HP 14 fell to earth quite
> slowly and UNstably with full flaps and no hands/feet on the controls, and
> never exceeded ~50 knots regardless of any of the "unusual attitudes" it found
> while bouncing between the tail-high/nose-low state and "various sideways
> states" as it alternated between stalled with full flaps and not stalled with
> full flaps. To avoid stalling, one merely had to hold sufficient forward stick
> to maintain 40 knots or so. Quite instructive...

It was probably emphasized elsewhere already in this thread, but worth emphasizing again, that many gliders have speed limits for positive flaps. In a 27 at VNE you can only be on negative flap. Not even neutral flap 3 (which I find it odd). So you really need to maintain relatively slow speed to fly really dirty in those gliders, especially with landing flaps.

Ramy

[Bob Pasker]

I wanted to mention that, unlike the other V speeds, Vne is *true* airspeed, not indicated, and the corresponding indicated airspeed goes down as altitude increases. The red-line on the ASI is Vne for sea-level. A high-altitude flier might memorize or have handy the values for Vne at 10 and 15 thousand, and FL200, and FL250.

[Bob Pasker]

also, I just read the report:

> Burruel said all aircraft's have airframe limitations and if you exceed those limits, especially in severe weather, an airplane accident like Sundays in downtown Reno is possible. "Every airplane has what's called a turbulence penetration airspeed and that's a speed that you always want to stay under if you anticipate any turbulence and then every airframe has a maximum airspeed as well, which under any circumstances you don't want to exceed that speed."


Its also worth mentioning that Vne is not based on load factor, like Va, but on flutter, which is why its True and not Indicated.

[[email protected]]

A word of caution regarding benign spiral dives. I have tried to establish a benign spiral set up in all my gliders, beginning with a ASW 20 and including; Nimbus 3, ASH 25, Std Cirrus, Ventus 2A, Pegasus, and most recently Std Libelle. I have been able to find a combination of flap, spoiler, and trim that will result in a benign spiral in all of them in when starting from a fairly normal attitude and in reasonably calm air. In almost every case if I attempted the manuever in moderate or sever turbulence or when in an steep turn, or from an unusual attitude the result was anything but benign. So please try it in adverse conditions, with you glider ,before attempting to descend thru an undercast or in cloud. I have Butterfly AH's in my ASH and am putting an LX S80 in my libelle, That plus practice is the best way to keep the wings on when in turbulence in clouds.

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 7:08:36 AM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
> So I'm flying in a blue hole in wave lift of 5 m/s, trimmed to 50 knots, in clear air with a cloud layer upwind and downwind, cloud top above and cloud base below. Suddenly I find myself in IMC. What are my options?
>
> My glider is capable of benign spiral. I open the spoilers, (already trimmed to 50 knots) and let go of stick and rudder. Then I mentally rehearse my bail out procedure and expect to come out below the cloud (or possibly above). It seems like I should decisively and without hesitation initiate the spiral ASAP, while the glider is still relatively level and at cruising airspeed.
>
> Suggestions?

It's never happened to me but I would probably attempt to revert back to IFR basics - needle, ball, and A/S. Opps, don't have a ball but ya got the yarn. If you keep the yarn centered, the compass heading steady, pull spoilers and trim for a 50kt descent, you have a pretty good chance until your pitot tube iced up. Of course in turbulence you might have your hands full.

[Bill D]

On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 8:08:36 AM UTC-6, son_of_flubber wrote:
> So I'm flying in a blue hole in wave lift of 5 m/s, trimmed to 50 knots, in clear air with a cloud layer upwind and downwind, cloud top above and cloud base below. Suddenly I find myself in IMC. What are my options?
>
> My glider is capable of benign spiral. I open the spoilers, (already trimmed to 50 knots) and let go of stick and rudder. Then I mentally rehearse my bail out procedure and expect to come out below the cloud (or possibly above). It seems like I should decisively and without hesitation initiate the spiral ASAP, while the glider is still relatively level and at cruising airspeed.
>
> Suggestions?

I think this is a question only a glider pilot would ask. Students seeking an airplane rating will experience several hours of instrument flight training so they'll know the answer.

The correct question to ask is not what to do after one "finds themselves" in IMC, but what can they do BEFORE it happens. The answer for glider pilots is to find a good CFII and spend hours under the hood in an airplane.

The experience will very likely do one of two things - both good. One is to create an absolute determination never to get "caught" in IMC. The other is to see the need for more IFR training or even an instrument rating.

At least a pilot will know the size of the dragon before is before tweaking its tail.

[Ramy[_2_]]

Well, this is based on the assumption that training is the answer for everything. It may be the answer for inexperience pilots. The two pilots who bailed out over Reno in the last decade where both extremely experienced ATP/ex military pilots with tons of IFR experience. Sometimes **** just happens.. This falls under the 99.9% safe rule. The 0.1% sucks when it happens. Luckily it ended well.

Ramy

[[email protected]]

Let me preface my statements with some background. I have hundreds of hours of actual instrument time in military and light and medium civil aircraft. Almost all of it was hand flown - no autopilot. A lot in the monsoons of Vietnam. I also have some hours of actual instrument in my glider where I've been doing some experiments. I do not have any wave experience.

A "benign spiral" is only benign if everything remains in equilibrium. You can practice it all day in fairly smooth air. All that goes out the window when you enter turbulence.

In the military, I was a standardization and instrument instructor, similar to an FAA examiner. On every flight, we always played the "what if" game. What if this or that were to happen. As gilder pilots, everyone always plays the "what if I loss lift game" and plan for places to land. We should be considering any and all situations and failures. By the way, you don't need to be in the aircraft to do that. You can do almost as well by flying a chair and planning alternatives.

One of the things I always did with an instrument student was covering all gyros, airspeed, and altimeter, and then told them I wanted them to maintain control of the aircraft and descend 2,000. They still had a compass and outside air temp. Most gliders have a compass and a few have air temp.

With only those two instruments you can accomplish the task in actual instrument conditions. Think back to our training about compass lead and lag. Remember what happens if you are heading north or south and bank the aircraft?

Just in case you don't, if you are heading north and bank the aircraft, the compass will lag the turn. Actually, if you bank to the right, it will show a turn to the west. If heading south and you bank the aircraft, the compass will lead your turn. As soon as you bank to the right, the compass will swing to the right, even if you don't turn.

Now you know the secret - head SOUTH and try to keep the compass pointing south. As soon as you bank to the right, the compass will start a swing right. Correct to level and it will return to south, Bank left and it will swing left. It doesn't take much practice to get it down.

As for descending 2,000. all you need do is watch the outside air temp. The standard lapse rate is 2 degrees centigrade or 3 1/2 degrees Fahrenheit per 1,000 feet. A temp increase of 4C is approximately 2,000.

If we see clouds closing in on us, the normal first thought is to speed up to get away from the clouds. That's exactly the opposite of what you should be considering. First, at high altitudes, it would be easy to exceed VNE. Next, we don't want to over stress the aircraft in turbulence.

On most gliders, I would drop my gear to increase drag until I could get below flap speed. Then I would extend all the drag flaps you can. Then when slow, I'd extend spoilers or speed brakes. Your best friend in this case is not speed, but controlled rate of descent.

FYI, my plan for the instrument flying experiments I have been doing is to complete all three legs of the diamond badge in Georgia. That would be a first. All the IFR flying is on an instrument clearance with block altitudes. I haven't figured out yet how to maintain an assigned altitude in a glider!

Charlie

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

I think the idea of a "dirty" glider is a great idea, but will set one up for losing parts of the glider, like the flaps and ailerons, then the glider itself. Most gliders have airspeed limits on gear, flaps. I always had a very small level installed in the middle of the panel on my gliders (a level that can be installed on an AH). But then I have had much training with parcel panel IFR. Another poster mentioned ball (yaw string), airspeed, compass and altimeter can keep you in control, yes it can, but you had better have much practice and not have to scan from canopy to various parts of the panel to get all this information. Go rent a 172 and instructor, you will see how difficult it is, and a 172 will fly perfect without the pilot input.

I think a plan is the best, know the benign spiral characteristics of your glider in various configurations. Have a GPS coordinate for low ground, get some IFR training, get a vario with instant on AH, if you are below manuovering speed open the airbrakes. If you are not confident of your IFR skills try to freeze the controls instead of chasing instrument indications. Get a good flight instructor and practice your plan. Talk to other pilots about your plan and do not make any sudden control inputs unless you have a visual of the horizon. I saw someone posted that Bob got caught between two cloud layers. This has happened to me in both helicopters and airplanes, while you are not hard IFR you essentially are as there is no horizon. Same thing can happen in haze or low light.

No one mentioned spinning through the clouds. My personal view is that unless you know the sustained spin characteristics, you are likely to end up with the spin turning into a death spiral.

Good discussion though with lots of ideas to process.

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 7:08:36 AM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
> So I'm flying in a blue hole in wave lift of 5 m/s, trimmed to 50 knots, in clear air with a cloud layer upwind and downwind, cloud top above and cloud base below. Suddenly I find myself in IMC. What are my options?
>
> My glider is capable of benign spiral. I open the spoilers, (already trimmed to 50 knots) and let go of stick and rudder. Then I mentally rehearse my bail out procedure and expect to come out below the cloud (or possibly above). It seems like I should decisively and without hesitation initiate the spiral ASAP, while the glider is still relatively level and at cruising airspeed.
>
> Suggestions?

I wonder if entering clouds during wave flight in the Sierras would pose a risk of entering icing conditions ? If so would the benign spiral still be recommended ? Flying slow and dirty ?

Thanks, not an experienced wave pilot, Brian

[Bill D]

On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 8:40:26 PM UTC-6, Ramy wrote:
> Well, this is based on the assumption that training is the answer for everything. It may be the answer for inexperience pilots. The two pilots who bailed out over Reno in the last decade where both extremely experienced ATP/ex military pilots with tons of IFR experience. Sometimes **** just happens. This falls under the 99.9% safe rule. The 0.1% sucks when it happens. Luckily it ended well.
>
> Ramy

Great pilots, no matter how experienced, know their training never ends. Yes, **** happens and when it does, all that ultimately matters is whether the skills brought to the task are adequate.

I also have several thousand hours of actual instrument time and what that experience taught me was that I should never place myself in a position where there was any possibility of entering IMC unless the aircraft was fully equipped and I was current and competent in using that equipment under actual IMC. Otherwise, all that experience counts for nothing.

[Tango Eight]

This thread is off the rails. OP posed a scenario involving IMC in smooth lift at low speed. Now guys are complaining that some of the tips given won't work at redline in rough air. Well that's true. It shouldn't really be a surprise now, should it?

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[Darryl Ramm]

On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 8:37:02 PM UTC-7, Tango Eight wrote:
> This thread is off the rails. OP posed a scenario involving IMC in smooth lift at low speed. Now guys are complaining that some of the tips given won't work at redline in rough air. Well that's true. It shouldn't really be a surprise now, should it?
>
> -Evan Ludeman / T8

And the scenarios were folks are breaking gliders in wave, at least in the big Sierra wave are just not that scenario, so it's not particularly interesting to other folks here, who may be trying to get the topic on a rail relevant to actual problems experienced in real wave flying ... :-) Well stuff that has at least eaten two gliders in the Reno areas.

The Sierra wave scenario is really being closed in IMC near VNE in smooth air (if bombing along you are maybe 10,000'or so higher than the rotor). No turbulence necessary to have a very bad day.

[Ramy[_2_]]

True, but nothing wrong with expanding the discussion to the more realistic scenario of what happened recently (which no doubt inspired the OP to start this thread) while still staying on topic.
And yes, one never stop learning and training, my comment was towards the common remark to take a flight with an instructor, as if instructors always have more experience. Many instructors have more experience in takeoff and landings, but not in soaring, XC, wave and extreem weather.

Ramy

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Dear Ramy, I too thought that since many instructors do not own their own glider their experience might be limited to take off landing and basic pattern work. Well, that is not true. Not all instructors are created equally. I am licensed to fly everything except hot air balloons and blimps, I have always been able to find an instructor to teach me something new. When I first started to fly the Minden area I took a five hour session with Carl Herold (I do not remember if he was a licensed instructor, but that was not important). Want to learn about ridge flying book a flight with Tom Knauff, at least 13 years ago you could. I took my commercial helicopter check ride with Boeing's chief test pilot. If you want to learn you can ALWAYS find someone better and more experienced than you. One post commented that instruction was for inexperienced (I might be paraphrasing or worse mis-paraphrasing) but I respectfully disagree. I have 7,500 hours in everything from open cockpit biplanes to WWII fighters, gliders, jets. I continually train in whatever I fly. Yes, a few times I did not learn as much as I wanted, but that did not make me stop seeking out the more experienced. I took a very expensive mountain flying class in helicopters and ended up teaching the instructors much, so I got them to comp me a day in the water dunk tank.

[Kevin Brooker]

To keep expanding the thread there are many more items to think about. What is the terrain like? Lots of ways this can play out depending upon the sounding but there is no way to determine the thickness of the cloud layer. Might set up a perfectly good, stable, and safe descent only to fly it right into the ground. The spiral might allow drifting back into the downward side of the wave and the descent rate will go way up; be prepared for strange instrument readings. The pilot won't know how they will react to unusual and frightening operations. Most people don't fly much wave and make a trip to grab a diamond and tend to go since they just have this weekend of camp to make it.

In general, the OP scenario can be avoided by checking the soundings for the predicted wx during the flight. I know, the forecast can be wrong but taking a look and preparing for the potential can't hurt either. If the trend is the DP and temp getting closer as the day goes on the chance of getting closed in go up. The scenario an be avoided by seeing what the local pilots might do as local knowledge is very valuable. If the wx looks iffy, stay on the ground or change the flight plan. No flight ever has to be made.

[Tango Eight]

On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 12:14:19 AM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
> True, but nothing wrong with expanding the discussion

I'm not objecting to that. I'm objecting to people taking answers to specific questions out of the original context and complaining that the answers are no longer correct.

-Evan

[jfitch]

On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 9:04:03 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 8:37:02 PM UTC-7, Tango Eight wrote:
> > This thread is off the rails. OP posed a scenario involving IMC in smooth lift at low speed. Now guys are complaining that some of the tips given won't work at redline in rough air. Well that's true. It shouldn't really be a surprise now, should it?
> >
> > -Evan Ludeman / T8
>
> And the scenarios were folks are breaking gliders in wave, at least in the big Sierra wave are just not that scenario, so it's not particularly interesting to other folks here, who may be trying to get the topic on a rail relevant to actual problems experienced in real wave flying ... :-) Well stuff that has at least eaten two gliders in the Reno areas.
>
> The Sierra wave scenario is really being closed in IMC near VNE in smooth air (if bombing along you are maybe 10,000'or so higher than the rotor). No turbulence necessary to have a very bad day.

It has not been mentioned in this thread that VNE at the high altitudes associated with wave flight (at least the Sierra wave) is lower than the placard says. This is because flutter speed increases at a slower rate than TAS compared to IAS. Many don't know/remember this. In my glider, the placard VNE is 146 knots IAS but at 18,000 ft this is reduced to 122 knots IAS, at 30,000 less than 100 knots.

[JayM]

On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 12:02:26 PM UTC-7, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Apr 2015 11:41:01 -0600, Bob Whelan wrote:
>
> > In re Bob K.'s and Steve L.'s comments elsewhere on this branch, "Ha ha
> > ha. Oh the knowing joy of those familiar with 90-degree landing flaps
> > (and I'm one of 'em)!!!" Regrettably (in subsequently broken
> > ship/traumatized pilot terms), that particular religious war was lost
> > long, long ago.
> >
> Around 2004 there was another benign spiral thread which caused me to be
> a bit of experimenting in an ASW-20. I found that, in calm evening air
> trimmed for best glide (57 kts) and zero flap (position 3) and flying
> straight, it slowly developed a 25 second phugoid oscillation with an
> associated +/- 5kt speed oscillation.
>
> I also tried for a benign spiral: zero flap, wheel down and brakes out,
> same trimmed speed and going hands free after setting up a 20-30 degree
> bank. After even half a circle the bank angle had increased, the nose had
> dropped the speed was increasing. I never let it go beyond that point and
> concluded that the ASW-20 doesn't have a benign spiral.
>
> I haven't tried either experiment with the Libelle but should do so this
> season, as its always good stuff to know. BTW, my H.201 is s/n 82, so it
> dates from before the move to the B series, so it has balsa sandwich
> flying surface skins, the small tailplane and upper and lower surface
> brakes.
>
>
> --
> martin@ | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org |

Martin,
I have H201 SN 81 and it will do a beautiful benign spiral! I've had "hands off" for 15-20 minutes when descending from altitude.
Love the Libelle!
Jay

[son_of_flubber]

On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 11:37:02 PM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
>OP posed a scenario involving IMC in smooth lift at low speed. Now guys are complaining that some of the tips given won't work at redline in rough air.

On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 12:04:03 AM UTC-4, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> so it's not particularly interesting to other folks here, who may be trying to get the topic on a rail relevant to actual problems experienced in real wave flying ...
>
> The Sierra wave scenario is really being closed in IMC near VNE in smooth air (if bombing along you are maybe 10,000'or so higher than the rotor). No turbulence necessary to have a very bad day.

OP here. I'm happy to see discussion of the Sierra Wave scenario, but the scenario I posed is closer to the wave flying that I do in Vermont.

I'm flying in 'baby wave' at 50-60 knots to maintain position in the lift, maybe a little faster if I need to crab north or south to stay above the changing blue hole below. I may fly at Vno when I'm diving through the blue hole. I'm not flying XC and not anywhere near Vne. I can even stay close to the airport. When I'm ready (if ever) for something considerably more difficult, I'll go to the Mount Washington Wave Camp in NH.

It is not the Sierra wave or Mount Washington, but it is still risky. It is often 'wet', the blue holes are smallish, they open, close and move around.. The rotor can become unflyable (while you are still on the ground or above the cloud deck) and one expects rotor in the landing pattern, strong crosswind and sink on final. Landing at 70-80 knots is standard fare.

WRT turbulence in the cloud deck layer, my understanding is that the air in that layer is smooth since the cloud is formed by the laminar flow of air. The cloud forms where it hit the high pressure isobar and dissipates at the low pressure isobar. Basically smooth air, no convection... Am I wrong about this? So assuming not, descending through the cloud deck with a benign spiral seems plausible. Avoiding terrain is a issue and a moving map seems prudent. There is a good possibility of clear air above the valley floor, but the cap cloud likely touches the upwind ridge.

Below the solid cloud deck, there are rotor clouds and turbulence a plenty, and the gamble is that one pops out of the cloud deck between the rotor clouds. When that happens I'll be flying at 50-60 knots unless I get spit out of a rotor cloud and into a spin.

[Dan Marotta]

I'd only add, regarding your benign spiral scenario, that you'll be
traveling down wind at the velocity of the wind. Because of that, your
vertical speed will be increasing and decreasing (even gaining altitude
as you pass through rising and sinking air) and you may well break out
of the clouds a ridge or two downwind of your field.

Circumstances vary but, when I'm trying to get down from wave, I fly
slow and draggy rather than fast and clean (near Vne). That way, when I
hit the rotor (out west it's often in clear air) it won't be such a bad
experience.

BTW, having all my wave experience in Colorado and New Mexico, your
description of eastern wave sounds intimidating!

On 4/9/2015 8:51 AM, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 11:37:02 PM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
>> OP posed a scenario involving IMC in smooth lift at low speed. Now guys are complaining that some of the tips given won't work at redline in rough air.
> On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 12:04:03 AM UTC-4, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>> so it's not particularly interesting to other folks here, who may be trying to get the topic on a rail relevant to actual problems experienced in real wave flying ...
>>
>> The Sierra wave scenario is really being closed in IMC near VNE in smooth air (if bombing along you are maybe 10,000'or so higher than the rotor). No turbulence necessary to have a very bad day.
> OP here. I'm happy to see discussion of the Sierra Wave scenario, but the scenario I posed is closer to the wave flying that I do in Vermont.
>
> I'm flying in 'baby wave' at 50-60 knots to maintain position in the lift, maybe a little faster if I need to crab north or south to stay above the changing blue hole below. I may fly at Vno when I'm diving through the blue hole. I'm not flying XC and not anywhere near Vne. I can even stay close to the airport. When I'm ready (if ever) for something considerably more difficult, I'll go to the Mount Washington Wave Camp in NH.
>
> It is not the Sierra wave or Mount Washington, but it is still risky. It is often 'wet', the blue holes are smallish, they open, close and move around. The rotor can become unflyable (while you are still on the ground or above the cloud deck) and one expects rotor in the landing pattern, strong crosswind and sink on final. Landing at 70-80 knots is standard fare.
>
> WRT turbulence in the cloud deck layer, my understanding is that the air in that layer is smooth since the cloud is formed by the laminar flow of air. The cloud forms where it hit the high pressure isobar and dissipates at the low pressure isobar. Basically smooth air, no convection... Am I wrong about this? So assuming not, descending through the cloud deck with a benign spiral seems plausible. Avoiding terrain is a issue and a moving map seems prudent. There is a good possibility of clear air above the valley floor, but the cap cloud likely touches the upwind ridge.
>
> Below the solid cloud deck, there are rotor clouds and turbulence a plenty, and the gamble is that one pops out of the cloud deck between the rotor clouds. When that happens I'll be flying at 50-60 knots unless I get spit out of a rotor cloud and into a spin.
>
>
>

--
Dan Marotta

[[email protected][_2_]]

Any comments on coming out of the could with an intentional spin (one-gravity load entered at slow speed)?

[[email protected][_2_]]

Assuming slowing down first, and with known good VMC below the clouds, are there any comments about coming out of IMC using an intentional spin? (understanding that maximum load during spins is 1-G)

[son_of_flubber]

On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 11:11:14 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
> I'd only add, regarding your benign spiral scenario, that you'll be
> traveling down wind at the velocity of the wind...
> your vertical speed will be increasing and decreasing (even gaining
> altitude as you pass through rising and sinking air) and you may
> well break out of the clouds a ridge or two downwind of your field.

Good point. I think that may be the fatal flaw in this approach. The downwind terrain is largely unlandable and you don't have the altitude below the cloud layer to travel very far to find a landing spot.


> BTW, having all my wave experience in Colorado and New Mexico, your
> description of eastern wave sounds intimidating!

What I described is 'wet wave'. It is seductive and beautiful especially when the sun rays poke through the blue hole into the mist below. Lots of rainbows. The last bits of fall foilage. The lenticulars are often not visible.

We also have drier wave days when the lenticulars are clearly visible from the ground and there is a lot more blue sky. I imagine that this is more like western wave.

I'm having second thoughts about whether I really want to go up through the blue hole above the cloud deck on 'wet wave' days. There's often secondary wave below the cloud deck and ridge lift, and it is awesome when the sun rays poke down through the blue hole.

[[email protected][_2_]]

With the understanding that a spin is a 1-G maneuver, and responding to the original post, with sufficient clear air below and after slowing down, are there any comments about leaving the cloud using an intentional spin?

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

I do have a comment about coming out of the cloud in a spin. How many times have you tried to sustain a spin in your glider? I would do this before I tried spinning out of a cloud. The reason is in some aircraft a spin will turn into a spiral dive. They look the same but spin recovery technique will not work recovering from a dive and the airspeed builds very fast in a spiral dive. First time this happened to me was a real eye opener, just because I have never considered the glider would transition from spin to spiral dive. I did recognize it right away and recovered no problem, but it got my attention as I had never considered this before. I was in very clear smooth air with lots of altitude. I know the POH for an ASG-29 says spins will turn into spiral dive in a few turns. Just know what your gliders does. When practicing spins I do not remember ever letting the spin go more than 2 revolutions, what if it takes 10 revolutions and on the 3rd revolution your glider spirals.

Good thread though with lots to think about.

[son_of_flubber]

On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 11:31:55 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> Assuming slowing down first, and with known good VMC below the clouds, are there any comments about coming out of IMC using an intentional spin? (understanding that maximum load during spins is 1-G)

Compared to the benign spiral, a deliberate spin has the advantage of being faster, so there is less time to drift downwind. Especially appealing if you're above the valley floor when you start the spin.

I know pilots who use the spin to descend through strong wave lift in VFR and they comment on how long it took them to descend to the desired altitude. So it may take a lot of turns to get down.

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

On 4/9/2015 9:51 AM, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> I do have a comment about coming out of the cloud in a spin. How many
> times have you tried to sustain a spin in your glider? I would do this
> before I tried spinning out of a cloud. The reason is in some aircraft a
> spin will turn into a spiral dive. They look the same but spin recovery
> technique will not work recovering from a dive and the airspeed builds very
> fast in a spiral dive. First time this happened to me was a real eye
> opener, just because I have never considered the glider would transition
> from spin to spiral dive. I did recognize it right away and recovered no
> problem, but it got my attention as I had never considered this before. I
> was in very clear smooth air with lots of altitude. I know the POH for an
> ASG-29 says spins will turn into spiral dive in a few turns. Just know
> what your gliders does. When practicing spins I do not remember ever
> letting the spin go more than 2 revolutions, what if it takes 10
> revolutions and on the 3rd revolution your glider spirals.
>
> Good thread though with lots to think about.
>

Indeed...lotsa good stuff to contemplate, and ideally practice beforehand,
against the time you might (willingly or unwillingly) need to use any of it.

Spinning - what could possibly be surprising in a bird with an Approved Type
Certificate, rated for spins? Ignoring the certification fact that an explicit
number of turns was tested (usta be 3 in the U.S.), and if you go beyond that
you're now officially an unpaid test pilot, and ignoring the fact that spins
are sufficiently complex aerodynamically as to be still "inexactly
predictable" via computational methods, and nodding in the direction that
flight testing of spins and flutter are two things even professional test
pilots still pay Serious Respect to, many years ago I opted intentionally to
become an unpaid test pilot in my 1-26A (still airworthy today!), building my
skills and confidence by exploring spinning behavior. Over the course of a
summer, on days with about 10,000 vertical feet of spin-worthy airspace, I
incrementalized my way into extended spins in both directions...entries,
partial rotations, single turn spins, 2-turn spins, 3-turn spins, etc.

By the time I was up to 3-turn spins, it was becoming clear the ship had
distinctly different behaviors between left and right spins. One direction (I
forget which after all these years), the spin was "textbook classic" - nose
well down, spin rate constant, only full aft stick w. "the correct" (neutral?)
aileron and into-turn rudder convinced the ship to remain in the spin. Similar
control conditions the other direction showed considerable up-and-down
oscillation of the nose throughout each turn, in concert with variable spin
rate, slowing as the nose rose, and increasing again as it dropped. Had I not
seen before in college a US Navy film of A4 Skyhawk spin testing displaying
similar behavior, ALL of the varying-spin behavior would have been 100% new to
me (as a possibility, I mean), though I *was* also aware of the concept of
unrecoverable "flat spins."

Before I sold that 1-26, I'd convinced myself that example would spin "all day
long" the one direction in a stable, unchanging manner...at least up to 17
turns, which was the most I ever did. I also convinced myself it would NOT
ever remain in a stable spin the other direction, never being able to get more
than 5 turns from it before it staggered out from the nose-high condition.
Further, depending on how I positioned the ailerons (against the turn,
neutral, into the turn) the variable spin behavior ranged from "mostly an
'instant' uncoordinated spiral dive" through variable-over-time spinning
behavior followed ultimately transitioning into some form of uncoordinated
spiral dive. Arguably, in the absence of that knowledge, had I ever "needed to
spin through the clouds" I'd'a had a 50:50 chance of doing so in an intact
airframe.

I found it all very instructive and thought-provoking, one obvious conclusion
being not to expect consistent spin behavior just because a ship has an ATC
and is approved for spins! I'm not bashing the 1-26 or certification
procedures. The 1-26 is a wonderful ship for pilots of all skill levels,
allowing all manner of hamfistedness with relatively low risk to Joe
low-time-or-incautious Pilot. Certification procedures have necessarily
defined-before-the-fact conditions which must be met, and it's up to Joe
Pilot to decide how meaningful to him are those limits.

One other conclusion was, I really hoped/planned never to put myself into a
position where I seriously had to consider using my 1-26's spinning
capabilities to bail my butt out of cloud-coffin-corner! Flight in "wet waves"
to my way of cowardly thinking would be really tweaking the tiger's tail more
than I was ever comfortable with as a generic concept...though the devil is
always in the details, ground-to-cloud clearance and terrain beneath being two
obvious considerations...

In the Colorado Rockies (site of most of my soaring), we pretty much never
have to be concerned with wet waves of the sort relatively common in the
eastern U.S. mountains (where I grew up and got into soaring). Nevertheless
the most ice I ever picked up was when I fell out the bottom of a "somewhat
wet" Rockies' wave into a mild band of rotor-cu, beneath/ahead of which I'd
climbed to get into the wave. Being in a 90-degree flapped ship, in a known
location with known ground-to-cloud clearances, I was mostly aggravated at
losing the wave (I was sidling XC, and non-wave flight would slow my
progress). I simply put on flaps and resigned myself to having to re-thermal
my way back into the wave once I dropped below the cloudband. As I recall, the
clouds were ~2k feet thick, and in the time I was in them, I picked up about
an inch of rime ice on the main wing leading edge (and presumably on the
all-flying stabilator, though flying qualities weren't obviously affected).
The accretion rate thoroughly impressed me. Once in the (above freezing)
clear, it sublimated/slid off about as rapidly as it had accreted.
(Considerably chastened, I re-thought that day's XC plan!)

Bob W.

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

On 4/9/2015 8:51 AM, son_of_flubber wrote:

<Snip...>
> WRT turbulence in the cloud deck layer, my understanding is that the air in
> that layer is smooth since the cloud is formed by the laminar flow of air.
> The cloud forms where it hit the high pressure isobar and dissipates at the
> low pressure isobar. Basically smooth air, no convection... Am I wrong
> about this?

I used to think those things too, but my eyeball/butt experiences are Mother
Nature is more nuanced. I've climbed in waves' laminar flow up the faces of
what appeared to be the upwind face of 100% convective cumulus clouds...no
hint of nearby laminar flow in the structure of the clouds; no pileus caps in
sight. One day curiosity got the better of me and (being off the airways and
no other gliders then being aloft) I sidled over to where I poked a wing into
the "cumulus cloud"...still no turbulence. The (presumably) thermic lift
beneath the clouds had been pleasantly smooth, too, though until I climbed
into the laminar portion, only the alignment of the lift/cloud band gave any
visual hint wave was likely abundant. I wanted to go "hard IFR" out of sheer
curiosity, but didn't (sigh...).

Conversely, I've been in lenticular-marked waves and encountered
eyeball-rattling turbulence thousands of feet above the rotor band and
thousands of feet below the lennies. First time it happened I thought I'd
encountered wake turbulence and did a 180 to see if I was going to be on the
news later. No traffic ever seen. Later in that particular wave, and higher,
more - worse, sustained - turbulence. Again no obvious missed traffic. I opted
to land in order to better research and process the day's new-to-me experiences...

Since then, my working conclusion about laminar flow is "not always!" even if
solidly ensconced in a vertically deep wave. Three-dimensional effects can be
significant, as in when winds at varying altitudes vary in (laminar)
direction. Contemplating rocky streams helped me visualize this sort of thing.

Bob W.

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

On 4/9/2015 9:11 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
<Snip...>
> Circumstances vary but, when I'm trying to get down from wave, I fly slow
> and draggy rather than fast and clean (near Vne). That way, when I hit the
> rotor (out west it's often in clear air) it won't be such a bad
> experience.

I'll second Dan's methodology. Assuming the glider's nose is pointed downwind
when rotor is encountered, you'll get the double whammy of "whatever the
glider speed is" encounter with a rotor, with wind speed added to the glider's
airspeed...somewhat analogous to trying to land downwind. Flying from Boulder,
CO, my preferred method of descending through possibly gnarly rotor was to
remain in laminar flow until just upwind of the airport - which puts you above
the plains, not the mountains - and descend at low speed, nose into the wind.
- - - - - -

>
> BTW, having all my wave experience in Colorado and New Mexico, your
> description of eastern wave sounds intimidating!

Heh. A long-ago Christmas present of a wet New Zealand wave (the Taierari
[sp?] Pet) intimidates me every time I look at it!

Bob W.

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Thu, 09 Apr 2015 07:27:44 -0700, JayM wrote:

> I have H201 SN 81 and it will do a beautiful benign spiral! I've had
> "hands off" for 15-20 minutes when descending from altitude.
> Love the Libelle!
>
Thanks for the info. I'll definitely check that out next time I fly.

Curiosity: my Libelle was one of two that the GSA (UK forces soaring
association) bought in early 1970. The other one went to the 1970 World
Champs at Marfa. Is that your Libelle? What trim setting do you prefer
for a benign spiral?


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

[Dan Marotta]

I've never spun a glider more than about one or so turns and I've read
that most gliders will not stay in a spin by themselves. They tend to
transition to a spiral which, in cloud, without instruments and
training, will likely result in a broken glider. Recall that, in a
spin, the indicated airspeed will stabilize near the stall speed. I'd
suggest you try spinning your glider in gentle air and trying to lose a
thousand feet or more while in the spin. That is, if you really think
it's a viable maneuver.

On 4/9/2015 9:42 AM, wrote:
> With the understanding that a spin is a 1-G maneuver, and responding to the original post, with sufficient clear air below and after slowing down, are there any comments about leaving the cloud using an intentional spin?

--
Dan Marotta

[Dan Marotta]

It would be interesting to compare descent rate between a fully
developed spin (if you can keep your glider in the spin) and a dirty
glider at low airspeed (brakes, gear, flaps (if you have them), and
speed around 40 KIAS, headed into the wind).

On 4/9/2015 9:53 AM, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 11:31:55 AM UTC-4, wrote:
>> Assuming slowing down first, and with known good VMC below the clouds, are there any comments about coming out of IMC using an intentional spin? (understanding that maximum load during spins is 1-G)
> Compared to the benign spiral, a deliberate spin has the advantage of being faster, so there is less time to drift downwind. Especially appealing if you're above the valley floor when you start the spin.
>
> I know pilots who use the spin to descend through strong wave lift in VFR and they comment on how long it took them to descend to the desired altitude. So it may take a lot of turns to get down.

--
Dan Marotta

[jfitch]

On Friday, April 10, 2015 at 7:12:24 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> It would be interesting to compare descent rate between a fully
> developed spin (if you can keep your glider in the spin) and a dirty
> glider at low airspeed (brakes, gear, flaps (if you have them), and
> speed around 40 KIAS, headed into the wind).
>
> On 4/9/2015 9:53 AM, son_of_flubber wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 11:31:55 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> >> Assuming slowing down first, and with known good VMC below the clouds, are there any comments about coming out of IMC using an intentional spin? (understanding that maximum load during spins is 1-G)
> > Compared to the benign spiral, a deliberate spin has the advantage of being faster, so there is less time to drift downwind. Especially appealing if you're above the valley floor when you start the spin.
> >
> > I know pilots who use the spin to descend through strong wave lift in VFR and they comment on how long it took them to descend to the desired altitude. So it may take a lot of turns to get down.
>
> --
> Dan Marotta

A dirty glider flying fast will sink much faster than slow. Because all the dirt is parasitic, which goes up proportional to IAS^2. So dirty glider at 60 knots has 2.2x the (parasitic) drag compared to 40 knots.

[Dan Marotta]

Great point! That old V^^2 term, eh?

On 4/10/2015 8:17 AM, jfitch wrote:
> On Friday, April 10, 2015 at 7:12:24 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> It would be interesting to compare descent rate between a fully
>> developed spin (if you can keep your glider in the spin) and a dirty
>> glider at low airspeed (brakes, gear, flaps (if you have them), and
>> speed around 40 KIAS, headed into the wind).
>>
>> On 4/9/2015 9:53 AM, son_of_flubber wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 11:31:55 AM UTC-4, wrote:
>>>> Assuming slowing down first, and with known good VMC below the clouds, are there any comments about coming out of IMC using an intentional spin? (understanding that maximum load during spins is 1-G)
>>> Compared to the benign spiral, a deliberate spin has the advantage of being faster, so there is less time to drift downwind. Especially appealing if you're above the valley floor when you start the spin.
>>>
>>> I know pilots who use the spin to descend through strong wave lift in VFR and they comment on how long it took them to descend to the desired altitude. So it may take a lot of turns to get down.
>> --
>> Dan Marotta
> A dirty glider flying fast will sink much faster than slow. Because all the dirt is parasitic, which goes up proportional to IAS^2. So dirty glider at 60 knots has 2.2x the (parasitic) drag compared to 40 knots.

--
Dan Marotta

[Ramy[_2_]]

Indeed better fly fast, say up to 100 knots, with full spoilers and gear down, but not with positive/landing flaps at this speed!
You will be going down at well over 1000 fpm.

Ramy

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Fri, 10 Apr 2015 08:08:09 -0600, Dan Marotta wrote:

> I've never spun a glider more than about one or so turns and I've read
> that most gliders will not stay in a spin by themselves. They tend to
> transition to a spiral which, in cloud, without instruments and
> training, will likely result in a broken glider. Recall that, in a
> spin, the indicated airspeed will stabilize near the stall speed. I'd
> suggest you try spinning your glider in gentle air and trying to lose a
> thousand feet or more while in the spin. That is, if you really think
> it's a viable maneuver.
>
Always reading the POH before trying prolonged spins would seem to be a
good idea. Two different behaviours I do know:

- an SZD Junior has three different behaviours depending on pilot weight
* it auto-recovers after 2.5 turns with a light pilot
* maintains the spin with a medium weight pilot
* may go flat after several turns with a heavy pilot
I'm quite light: I can confirm that they self-recover after 2.5 turns
at my weight (72-75kg + parachute) even with the controls fully
crossed. I don't remember the transition points or (for heavy pilots)
how many turns they take to go flat, so if you fly one, read that
part of the pilot's manual before spinning it.

- ASK-21s tend to oscillate after around 3 turns (reported by Edwards test
pilots after the USAF Academy asked them to check the ASK-21 spin
characteristics).
Accession Number : ADA213513
Title : Schleicher ASK - 21 Glider (TG-9) Stall and Spin.


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

[[email protected]]

"Its also worth mentioning that Vne is not based on load factor, like Va, but on flutter, which is why its True and not Indicated. "

Actually flutter is dependent on equivalent airspeed not true airspeed. There was an interesting article in Soaring magazine way back where Stan Hall brought in a NASA aerodynamic expert specializing in aeroelasticity and had his work peer reviewed by other experts to try and get a definitive answer on a flutter question arising from a flutter accident that led to several months of "argument by letter to the editor."

"In my glider, the placard VNE is 146 knots IAS but at 18,000 ft this is reduced to 122 knots IAS" Which brings up a question I've never been able to get a good answer to: what methodology do they use to determine reduced VNE with increasing altitude? Many gliders specify just IAS and the gliders I've dealt with which do specify lower VNE's with increasing altitude don't have those speeds match up with TAS at those altitudes. Calculate what TAS at 18,000 for an IAS of 122 knots actually is. It's higher than 146 knots.

As for the original question: where I fly the clouds are filled with granite up to 7000 feet or more, the valleys are narrow and the valley floors are not much above sea level. I don't have a turn and slip or AH and I have only had minimal training on those instruments over a decade ago in a Piper Cherokee. Being caught in cloud where I fly I would probably opt for the parachute pretty damn quick. That however is just the best of a bunch of bad options really.

[jfitch]

On Friday, April 10, 2015 at 9:02:23 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> "Its also worth mentioning that Vne is not based on load factor, like Va, but on flutter, which is why its True and not Indicated. "
>
> Actually flutter is dependent on equivalent airspeed not true airspeed. There was an interesting article in Soaring magazine way back where Stan Hall brought in a NASA aerodynamic expert specializing in aeroelasticity and had his work peer reviewed by other experts to try and get a definitive answer on a flutter question arising from a flutter accident that led to several months of "argument by letter to the editor."
>
> "In my glider, the placard VNE is 146 knots IAS but at 18,000 ft this is reduced to 122 knots IAS" Which brings up a question I've never been able to get a good answer to: what methodology do they use to determine reduced VNE with increasing altitude? Many gliders specify just IAS and the gliders I've dealt with which do specify lower VNE's with increasing altitude don't have those speeds match up with TAS at those altitudes. Calculate what TAS at 18,000 for an IAS of 122 knots actually is. It's higher than 146 knots.
>
> As for the original question: where I fly the clouds are filled with granite up to 7000 feet or more, the valleys are narrow and the valley floors are not much above sea level. I don't have a turn and slip or AH and I have only had minimal training on those instruments over a decade ago in a Piper Cherokee. Being caught in cloud where I fly I would probably opt for the parachute pretty damn quick. That however is just the best of a bunch of bad options really.

In a cloud, it would be best to observe the max maneuvering airspeed which reliably tracks IAS but is usually considerably below Vne.

As I understand it, the flutter dynamics do not change at the same rate as dynamic pressure which is proportional to air density and V^2 therefore TAS is proportional to delta density^0.5. The coefficient for flutter in somewhere between 0.5 and 1 so the flutter speed increases, but not as fast as TAS increases with falling density. A lot of flutter has to do with dampening, I suppose in thinner air there is less.

I don't think many modern gliders are actually tested to flutter, I believe you are allowed to use computed numbers now for cert.

[JayM]

On Friday, April 10, 2015 at 5:11:12 AM UTC-7, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Apr 2015 07:27:44 -0700, JayM wrote:
>
> > I have H201 SN 81 and it will do a beautiful benign spiral! I've had
> > "hands off" for 15-20 minutes when descending from altitude.
> > Love the Libelle!
> >
> Thanks for the info. I'll definitely check that out next time I fly.
>
> Curiosity: my Libelle was one of two that the GSA (UK forces soaring
> association) bought in early 1970. The other one went to the 1970 World
> Champs at Marfa. Is that your Libelle? What trim setting do you prefer
> for a benign spiral?
>
>
> --
> martin@ | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org |

No, Mine was never in any National or higher competition according to the logbooks. I trim for 50kts, pull full dive brakes and take hands off the stick, feet off the rudders.
Jay

[Bill D]

Using high-drag configurations or spins to escape IMC is a desperation move fraught with unpredictable and uncontrollable hazards. There's enough data in the accident record to say it often doesn't work.

If one planes to fly in wave close to lenticulars, there's a chance of becoming enveloped in IMC. To me that says having an attitude indicator and enough skill using it to keep the glider upright in turbulent air is an absolute necessity.

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 08:01:45 -0700, JayM wrote:

> No, Mine was never in any National or higher competition according to
> the logbooks. I trim for 50kts, pull full dive brakes and take hands
> off the stick, feet off the rudders.
> Jay
>
OK, thanks.

Just now I looked up G-INFO, the UK database and found that S/N 83 is
also in the UK, so that's probably the other one the RAFGSA bought with
mine, but there's not enough detail to be sure.

You may be interested to know that S/N 3 is still registered and
presumably still flying.


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

[Bob Pasker]

FAR 23.335 use EAS in its definitions, but that's the regulation not the physics. If you can find any authoritative aerodynamic references regarding the relationship between flutter and EAS, rather than TAS, I would love to see it.


On Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 12:02:23 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> "Its also worth mentioning that Vne is not based on load factor, like Va, but on flutter, which is why its True and not Indicated. "
>
> Actually flutter is dependent on equivalent airspeed not true airspeed. There was an interesting article in Soaring magazine way back where Stan Hall brought in a NASA aerodynamic expert specializing in aeroelasticity and had his work peer reviewed by other experts to try and get a definitive answer on a flutter question arising from a flutter accident that led to several months of "argument by letter to the editor."
>
> "In my glider, the placard VNE is 146 knots IAS but at 18,000 ft this is reduced to 122 knots IAS" Which brings up a question I've never been able to get a good answer to: what methodology do they use to determine reduced VNE with increasing altitude? Many gliders specify just IAS and the gliders I've dealt with which do specify lower VNE's with increasing altitude don't have those speeds match up with TAS at those altitudes. Calculate what TAS at 18,000 for an IAS of 122 knots actually is. It's higher than 146 knots.
>
> As for the original question: where I fly the clouds are filled with granite up to 7000 feet or more, the valleys are narrow and the valley floors are not much above sea level. I don't have a turn and slip or AH and I have only had minimal training on those instruments over a decade ago in a Piper Cherokee. Being caught in cloud where I fly I would probably opt for the parachute pretty damn quick. That however is just the best of a bunch of bad options really.

[Bob Pasker]

although the spin may not increase the load factor, after you recover from a fully developed spin, you will find yourself 30 degrees (or more) nose down. the pullout from the dive is a high-G maneuver. Pull out too quickly, and you risk an accelerated stall (or worse). Pull out too slowly, and you risk exceeding max dive.

On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 11:42:03 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> With the understanding that a spin is a 1-G maneuver, and responding to the original post, with sufficient clear air below and after slowing down, are there any comments about leaving the cloud using an intentional spin?

[Bob Pasker]

On Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 12:02:23 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> "Its also worth mentioning that Vne is not based on load factor, like Va, but on flutter, which is why its True and not Indicated. "
>
> Actually flutter is dependent on equivalent airspeed not true airspeed.

VD is defined based on EAS (eg FAR 23.335), and Vne is defined based on VD (23.1505).

But EAS doesn't take into account air density, which is primarily a function of altitude (and a some temp thrown in). So Vne has to be corrected for air density, which is the TAS.

--bob

[jfitch]

On Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 11:34:02 AM UTC-7, Bob Pasker wrote:
> On Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 12:02:23 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> > "Its also worth mentioning that Vne is not based on load factor, like Va, but on flutter, which is why its True and not Indicated. "
> >
> > Actually flutter is dependent on equivalent airspeed not true airspeed.
>
> VD is defined based on EAS (eg FAR 23.335), and Vne is defined based on VD (23.1505).
>
> But EAS doesn't take into account air density, which is primarily a function of altitude (and a some temp thrown in). So Vne has to be corrected for air density, which is the TAS.
>
> --bob

A was mentioned previously, Vne is a flutter criteria, and flutter does not vary with density in the same way that TAS/IAS does. In other words, you cannot depend on flutter TAS being invariant with density altitude. There are some research papers on this you can find if you look.

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 11:34:01 -0700, Bob Pasker wrote:

> On Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 12:02:23 AM UTC-4,
> wrote:
>> "Its also worth mentioning that Vne is not based on load factor, like
>> Va, but on flutter, which is why its True and not Indicated. "
>>
>> Actually flutter is dependent on equivalent airspeed not true airspeed.
>
> VD is defined based on EAS (eg FAR 23.335), and Vne is defined based on
> VD (23.1505).
>
> But EAS doesn't take into account air density, which is primarily a
> function of altitude (and a some temp thrown in). So Vne has to be
> corrected for air density, which is the TAS.
>
Are you sure about that?

This reference says that EAS is a measure of dynamic pressure and gives
several formulae for it that all use either air density or air pressure:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalent_airspeed

Yes, I know about Wikipedia's dodgy treatment some social facts, but IME
its pretty good on this sort of stuff.


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

[jfitch]

On Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 2:31:02 PM UTC-7, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 11:34:01 -0700, Bob Pasker wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 12:02:23 AM UTC-4,
> > wrote:
> >> "Its also worth mentioning that Vne is not based on load factor, like
> >> Va, but on flutter, which is why its True and not Indicated. "
> >>
> >> Actually flutter is dependent on equivalent airspeed not true airspeed.
> >
> > VD is defined based on EAS (eg FAR 23.335), and Vne is defined based on
> > VD (23.1505).
> >
> > But EAS doesn't take into account air density, which is primarily a
> > function of altitude (and a some temp thrown in). So Vne has to be
> > corrected for air density, which is the TAS.
> >
> Are you sure about that?
>
> This reference says that EAS is a measure of dynamic pressure and gives
> several formulae for it that all use either air density or air pressure:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalent_airspeed
>
> Yes, I know about Wikipedia's dodgy treatment some social facts, but IME
> its pretty good on this sort of stuff.
>
>
> --
> martin@ | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org |

I always thought IAS (or EAS minus instrument error) was just an indication of dynamic pressure, in fact that is how the instruments are constructed: to measure dynamic pressure. It is proportional to rho, air density.

[jfitch]

On Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 6:15:16 PM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
> On Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 2:31:02 PM UTC-7, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> > On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 11:34:01 -0700, Bob Pasker wrote:
> >
> > > On Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 12:02:23 AM UTC-4,
> > > wrote:
> > >> "Its also worth mentioning that Vne is not based on load factor, like
> > >> Va, but on flutter, which is why its True and not Indicated. "
> > >>
> > >> Actually flutter is dependent on equivalent airspeed not true airspeed.
> > >
> > > VD is defined based on EAS (eg FAR 23.335), and Vne is defined based on
> > > VD (23.1505).
> > >
> > > But EAS doesn't take into account air density, which is primarily a
> > > function of altitude (and a some temp thrown in). So Vne has to be
> > > corrected for air density, which is the TAS.
> > >
> > Are you sure about that?
> >
> > This reference says that EAS is a measure of dynamic pressure and gives
> > several formulae for it that all use either air density or air pressure:
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalent_airspeed
> >
> > Yes, I know about Wikipedia's dodgy treatment some social facts, but IME
> > its pretty good on this sort of stuff.
> >
> >
> > --
> > martin@ | Martin Gregorie
> > gregorie. | Essex, UK
> > org |
>
> I always thought IAS (or EAS minus instrument error) was just an indication of dynamic pressure, in fact that is how the instruments are constructed: to measure dynamic pressure. It is proportional to rho, air density.

Here is the reference I think I was remembering. Can't seem to access it now without money, but the abstract pretty much says it. I think Schleicher at least believes this, or they would not have bothered to put mention and tables in their manuals.

http://journals.sfu.ca/ts/index.php/ts/article/view/216

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 18:42:07 -0700, jfitch wrote:

>> I always thought IAS (or EAS minus instrument error) was just an
>> indication of dynamic pressure, in fact that is how the instruments are
>> constructed: to measure dynamic pressure. It is proportional to rho,
>> air density.
>
> Here is the reference I think I was remembering. Can't seem to access it
> now without money, but the abstract pretty much says it. I think
> Schleicher at least believes this, or they would not have bothered to
> put mention and tables in their manuals.
>
> http://journals.sfu.ca/ts/index.php/ts/article/view/216

I first heard about the in-flight use of EAS in Feb, when Col. Richard
Graham (USAF, retd.) visited our club and gave a talk about flying the
SR-71, which was flown using EAS. Very interesting indeed: if you get the
change to hear him, do it.

We asked him if it would glide. Turns out that it would: flame-outs at
altitude had to be glided down to 30,000 before attempting a relight.


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

[Chris Rollings[_2_]]

A couple of points no one seems to have mentioned:

Vne on some types may be determined by pitch stability, not flutter speed,
and this is largely TAS related.

If you have been wave flying at height, in very cold air, and then you make
a rapid descent, and fly though a cloud layer below the freezing level on
the way down, you will get a frosted glass conopy, through which you can
see nothing, and it will take several minutes to clear. I once saw a very
experienced pilot, who had done this, land, brakes fully open, holding the
canopy partly open with one hand whilst he landed the glider using the
other hand.

At 07:18 12 April 2015, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 18:42:07 -0700, jfitch wrote:
>
>>> I always thought IAS (or EAS minus instrument error) was just an
>>> indication of dynamic pressure, in fact that is how the instruments
are
>>> constructed: to measure dynamic pressure. It is proportional to rho,
>>> air density.
>>
>> Here is the reference I think I was remembering. Can't seem to access
it
>> now without money, but the abstract pretty much says it. I think
>> Schleicher at least believes this, or they would not have bothered to
>> put mention and tables in their manuals.
>>
>> http://journals.sfu.ca/ts/index.php/ts/article/view/216
>
>I first heard about the in-flight use of EAS in Feb, when Col. Richard
>Graham (USAF, retd.) visited our club and gave a talk about flying the
>SR-71, which was flown using EAS. Very interesting indeed: if you get the

>change to hear him, do it.
>
>We asked him if it would glide. Turns out that it would: flame-outs at
>altitude had to be glided down to 30,000 before attempting a relight.
>
>
>--
>martin@ | Martin Gregorie
>gregorie. | Essex, UK
>org |
>

[[email protected]]

VNE with altitude.

If your VNE changes with altitude, it will be listed in the glider's Manual, read it and quit trying to guess.

Todd Smith
3S

[waremark]

Interesting that you all talk about 'what to do' based on being caught in cloud on an unplanned basis. I fly with an A/H and am happy to thermal in cloud using that. However, I always worry about what to do if the A/H fails. My glider has no backup blind flying instrumentation (unlike most GA aircraft which have an electric turn coordinator as well as a vacuum horizon - and which are more speed stable than gliders).

My plan, tested in clear and admittedly smooth air, has been to open the air brakes and take hands and feet off if either the A/H shows obvious signs of failing or the airspeed increases over a certain level (I plan on 75 knots). A misleading A/H would be far worse than an obviously failed one, because you would be in worse shape before taking this action. However I recently talked to someone who had the A/H in his LX computer fail while in cloud.. He kept things steady while rebooting the LX and all was well. I think I would stick to the open the air brakes plan.

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

To answer (tongue in cheek) the original question......

"Stick your head between your knees, kiss your a$$ goodbye.......".

Unintended flight into IMC with a VFR aircraft (yes, basically regardless of type) is to be AVOIDED at all costs.
If it happens (you save it), "maybe" you'll save it and have a good story for the "I learned that from hanger flying" thread.........
You may also get to "test/wish you" had a chute if it comes out wrong. :-(

Weather is rather dynamic, if you're flying and it goes "bad", it's not a good place to be.

[Jonathon May[_2_]]

At 17:35 12 April 2015, waremark wrote:
>Interesting that you all talk about 'what to do' based on being caught in
>c=
>loud on an unplanned basis. I fly with an A/H and am happy to thermal in
>cl=
>oud using that. However, I always worry about what to do if the A/H
fails.
>=
>My glider has no backup blind flying instrumentation (unlike most GA
>aircra=
>ft which have an electric turn coordinator as well as a vacuum horizon -
>an=
>d which are more speed stable than gliders).=20
>
>My plan, tested in clear and admittedly smooth air, has been to open the
>ai=
>r brakes and take hands and feet off if either the A/H shows obvious
signs
>=
>of failing or the airspeed increases over a certain level (I plan on 75
>kno=
>ts). A misleading A/H would be far worse than an obviously failed one,
>beca=
>use you would be in worse shape before taking this action. However I
>recent=
>ly talked to someone who had the A/H in his LX computer fail while in
>cloud=
>.. He kept things steady while rebooting the LX and all was well. I think
I
>=
>would stick to the open the air brakes plan.
>


Sorry for the thread drift
One of my gliding club members in England was wave soaring over the
pennies when he lost lift ,and in to the cloud he went .
He switch his LX to horizon and made a safe decent ,but lost positional
awareness,he did not hit the hillside but at about 200ft it's fair to say
the
ground found him and a 6 month old asw31 would never be the same again .
He was not hurt but it took 3hours to walk off the hill and the retrieve is
was
a story all of its own and lasting over a week.
So the story is not over when you clear the bottom of cloud ,personally the

nearest I have been to a problem is descending through a closing hole only
to
find the canopy iced over ,but I managed to hang on until it melted and I
landed in a farmers field.As it was Christmas and my friends arrived with
the
trailer and bottles of wine he was very good with us and I put it down as I

learned from that and with the massive endorphin surge I had a great
Christmas.

[waremark]

Do you know why the 31 pilot did not use the engine to fly to an area where the cloudbase was higher?

I am not sure it won't be the same again! I think the UK agent bought the wreckage and is rebuilding it.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

The SR-71 did have an what was refer to as an"unstart" where usually just one engine would flame out. This aircraft was one of the most amazing aircraft ever designed and built. it was the first stealth aircraft. A great read is "Sled Driver"

>
> I first heard about the in-flight use of EAS in Feb, when Col. Richard
> Graham (USAF, retd.) visited our club and gave a talk about flying the
> SR-71, which was flown using EAS. Very interesting indeed: if you get the
> change to hear him, do it.
>
> We asked him if it would glide. Turns out that it would: flame-outs at
> altitude had to be glided down to 30,000 before attempting a relight.
>
>
> --
> martin@ | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org |

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

You mention a misleading AH. i have read many accident reports were the last thing a pilot did before losing the aircraft was to cage the gryo, thinking that somehow the instrument was bad when in fact the aircraft was departing. In the clouds is not time to think your gyro is not working. If it is showing an attitude I would trust it.


>
> My plan, tested in clear and admittedly smooth air, has been to open the air brakes and take hands and feet off if either the A/H shows obvious signs of failing or the airspeed increases over a certain level (I plan on 75 knots). A misleading A/H would be far worse than an obviously failed one, because you would be in worse shape before taking this action. However I recently talked to someone who had the A/H in his LX computer fail while in cloud. He kept things steady while rebooting the LX and all was well. I think I would stick to the open the air brakes plan.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

No one has mentioned it, but the ASW-27 that came apart was experimental. Am I correct that experimental aircraft are not to be flown over congested areas? Wonder if there will be any FAA fall out from this?

[krasw]

On Wednesday, 8 April 2015 17:08:36 UTC+3, son_of_flubber wrote:
> So I'm flying in a blue hole in wave lift of 5 m/s, trimmed to 50 knots, in clear air with a cloud layer upwind and downwind, cloud top above and cloud base below. Suddenly I find myself in IMC. What are my options?
>
> My glider is capable of benign spiral. I open the spoilers, (already trimmed to 50 knots) and let go of stick and rudder. Then I mentally rehearse my bail out procedure and expect to come out below the cloud (or possibly above). It seems like I should decisively and without hesitation initiate the spiral ASAP, while the glider is still relatively level and at cruising airspeed.
>
> Suggestions?

Standard procedure in cloud flying instruction for loss of control is to open airbrakes immediately. And you will loose control very soon, so better to pop them open right away, well before VNE. I would probably set flaps as much positive as possible (landing flaps being best option) if airspeed permits. Idea is to restrict your speed as much as possible during those loops, spirals and all that scary stuff your glider will do inside cloud. And it will, believe me, there is no such thing as bening uncontrolled manouver in cloud if you are flying modern glider.

Intentional cloud flying with artificial horizon that comes with modern variometer is plain suicidal. They are not designed to be as rugged as imc flying requires. Simple disturbance in GPS reception is enough to make your AH to reboot in cloud.

[Surge]

On Monday, 13 April 2015 08:36:57 UTC+2, krasw wrote:
> Intentional cloud flying with artificial horizon that comes with modern variometer is plain suicidal. They are not designed to be as rugged as imc flying requires. Simple disturbance in GPS reception is enough to make your AH to reboot in cloud.

That's a rather stupid implementation. Do you know which units display this behaviour?
From what I've read the LXNav S8/S80 AHRS doesn't need a GPS source and relies on it's inertial platform to provide an attitude display (without heading unless you add the compass module). I don't have one to confirm though.

The attitude app running on my Samsung N7100 (Note 2) doesn't reboot when it loses a GPS lock. In fact it doesn't use GPS at all but rather an inertial platform based on the 3-axis accelerometer, 3-axis gyroscope and 3-axis magnetometer built into the phone. I don't rely on it when flying but it's surprisingly accurate and reliable and doesn't display any drift or even tumbling at odd attitudes.

I find it really hard to believe that a mass produced consumer smartphone can turn out to be more reliable than an instrument specifically created for the aviation market.

Please name and shame the instruments you're referring to so that I can avoid them.

[krasw]

On Monday, 13 April 2015 11:11:08 UTC+3, Surge wrote:
> On Monday, 13 April 2015 08:36:57 UTC+2, krasw wrote:
> > Intentional cloud flying with artificial horizon that comes with modern variometer is plain suicidal. They are not designed to be as rugged as imc flying requires. Simple disturbance in GPS reception is enough to make your AH to reboot in cloud.
>
> That's a rather stupid implementation. Do you know which units display this behaviour?
> From what I've read the LXNav S8/S80 AHRS doesn't need a GPS source and relies on it's inertial platform to provide an attitude display (without heading unless you add the compass module). I don't have one to confirm though..
>
> The attitude app running on my Samsung N7100 (Note 2) doesn't reboot when it loses a GPS lock. In fact it doesn't use GPS at all but rather an inertial platform based on the 3-axis accelerometer, 3-axis gyroscope and 3-axis magnetometer built into the phone. I don't rely on it when flying but it's surprisingly accurate and reliable and doesn't display any drift or even tumbling at odd attitudes.
>
> I find it really hard to believe that a mass produced consumer smartphone can turn out to be more reliable than an instrument specifically created for the aviation market.
>
> Please name and shame the instruments you're referring to so that I can avoid them.

I think it is safe to assume that most "inertial platform" implementations use as many data sources as possible, including gps. Not sure how stupid or not that is. I have no need to name or shame anyone as all manufacturers strictly forbid imc flying with their instruments *only*, for a good reason.

Smartphone apps I have tried are pretty useless if you are thermalling, but possibly better than nothing for level flight.

It takes surprisingly long time to comprehend that AH or gyro is failing by the way, you have contradictory indications but no knowledge which is correct. I now have a whole new unsterstanding how imc accidents can unfold.

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 19:55:55 -0700, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:

> The SR-71 did have an what was refer to as an"unstart" where usually
> just one engine would flame out. This aircraft was one of the most
> amazing aircraft ever designed and built. it was the first stealth
> aircraft. A great read is "Sled Driver"
>
Unstarts are nothing to do with flame-outs. In an unstart the shockwave
from the spike pops out of the intake (during normal operation it is
captured by the intake) but the J-57 continues to run. There is a loud
bang accompanied by violent yaw and strong deceleration, mainly because
80% of the thrust comes from the ram effect and reheating the bypass
flow. When an engine unstarted most of this thrust component vanished.

"Flame out" meant that the J-57 had flamed out like any other jet engine
can do: once that happened it wouldn't restart above 30,000 ft: you just
wasted a shot of TEB if you tried a higher start.

This info comes from "The Complete Illustrated History of The Blackbird"
by Col.Richard H Graham and from hearing Col. Graham's talk. If you want
to know more about the SR-71 this is an excellent book to get.


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

[Bob Pasker]

On Sunday, April 12, 2015 at 10:48:40 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> VNE with altitude.
>
> If your VNE changes with altitude, it will be listed in the glider's Manual, read it and quit trying to guess.
>
> Todd Smith
> 3S

"The IAS at which never exceed speed (VNE) is reached
decreases with altitude. The glider flight manual (GFM)
should include a table, such as the one shown in Figure 4-11,
that details how VNE should be reduced with altitude. These
figures vary from glider to glider; therefore, pilots should
always refer to the manual specific to the glider they are flying,
which should show a chart similar to the one in Figure 4-11."

*should*

Source: Glider Flying Handbook, Page 4-3

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/pilot_handbook/media/PHAK%20-%20Chapter%2010.pdf

[son_of_flubber]

To put the hangar talk into perspective, here is a quote from John Good:

"Wave flying is dangerous - one of the more dangerous activities that humans voluntarily engage in. With experience and care, the risks can be lowered, but not eliminated. Some aspects of safety in wave and mountain flying are presented here, but this is far from a
complete discussion, and some of this material is not aimed at beginners. Pilots should strive to develop the judgment that will keep them safe, understanding that mountains such as these can present conditions in which even excellent aircraft and skilled pilots cannot safely fly."


From "Flying Mt. Washington Area Wave from Gorham, NH"
Version 11.1, October, 2011 - copyright by John F. Good

http://mtwashingtonsoaring.org/Documents.asp?n=41738&org=mtwashingtonsoaring.org

Mt. Washington poses some unique challenges (like the downwind wilderness) but it shares commonalities with other wave flying sites.

[Dan Marotta]

There are apps at the Android store which provide attitude information.
I found one which acted as a heads up display (HUD) but stated that it
was *not* to be used for actual flight. I tried it in clear air and
found that above some speed, it ceased to function. Would have been
nice to have it running on my Streak...

On 4/13/2015 2:11 AM, Surge wrote:
> On Monday, 13 April 2015 08:36:57 UTC+2, krasw wrote:
>> Intentional cloud flying with artificial horizon that comes with modern variometer is plain suicidal. They are not designed to be as rugged as imc flying requires. Simple disturbance in GPS reception is enough to make your AH to reboot in cloud.
> That's a rather stupid implementation. Do you know which units display this behaviour?
> From what I've read the LXNav S8/S80 AHRS doesn't need a GPS source and relies on it's inertial platform to provide an attitude display (without heading unless you add the compass module). I don't have one to confirm though.
>
> The attitude app running on my Samsung N7100 (Note 2) doesn't reboot when it loses a GPS lock. In fact it doesn't use GPS at all but rather an inertial platform based on the 3-axis accelerometer, 3-axis gyroscope and 3-axis magnetometer built into the phone. I don't rely on it when flying but it's surprisingly accurate and reliable and doesn't display any drift or even tumbling at odd attitudes.
>
> I find it really hard to believe that a mass produced consumer smartphone can turn out to be more reliable than an instrument specifically created for the aviation market.
>
> Please name and shame the instruments you're referring to so that I can avoid them.

--
Dan Marotta

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Dear Surge, what attitude app are you using on you Samsung?

>
> The attitude app running on my Samsung N7100 (Note 2) doesn't reboot when it loses a GPS lock. In fact it doesn't use GPS at all but rather an inertial platform based on the 3-axis accelerometer, 3-axis gyroscope and 3-axis magnetometer built into the phone. I don't rely on it when flying but it's surprisingly accurate and reliable and doesn't display any drift or even tumbling at odd attitudes.
>
> I find it really hard to believe that a mass produced consumer smartphone can turn out to be more reliable than an instrument specifically created for the aviation market.
>
> Please name and shame the instruments you're referring to so that I can avoid them.

[George Haeh]

Peter Garrison in May's Flying discusses
a PC-12 spiral to breakup. The pilot was
instrument rated and current, but was
caught out by an autopilot dropout.

"Any airplane will enter a spiral dive... if
no attempt is made to control it. Some
may fly hands-off for many minutes in
smooth air, but if they are disturbed by a
gust or are... [already] banked... they will
inevitably bank more and more steeply..."

So while a benign spiral might work in
smooth air, it likely won't work for long in
rotor.

Air brakes, gear and landing flaps may
delay the inevitable until you get out of
cloud and hopefully are able to manage
the recovery within limits. However the
maximum speed for landing flap setting
can be considerably lower than VNE.

Garrison goes on to discuss the serious
challenge in recovery from a high speed
spiral.

[Dave Nadler]

Many posters have mentioned opening the spoilers.
For many modern gliders, this reduces the allowable G considerably.
JAR-22 only requires g-limits of -0 to +3.5 with spoilers open,
which is what the machine I currently fly permits.
Going below 0 G in rotor would hardly be surprising;
if dirt comes off the floor you are now beyond limits...
And when you drift back of lift in cloud, you'll likely find rotor.

Be careful out there,
Best Regards, Dave

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 5:59:56 PM UTC-4, Dave Nadler wrote:
> Many posters have mentioned opening the spoilers.
> For many modern gliders, this reduces the allowable G considerably.
> JAR-22 only requires g-limits of -0 to +3.5 with spoilers open,
> which is what the machine I currently fly permits.
> Going below 0 G in rotor would hardly be surprising;
> if dirt comes off the floor you are now beyond limits...
> And when you drift back of lift in cloud, you'll likely find rotor.
>
> Be careful out there,
> Best Regards, Dave

I go back to my previous post of "kissing your A$$ goodbye"......

In general.... "worst comes to worst"...... "Drag is your friend"..... it extends the time before "you're wishing for a chute"....... and "crunched glass"......

Sailplanes can be replaced, people can't.

I had other comments, but deleted before this post........

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

Back to the OPs comment about being trimmed and climbing for altitude when you go IMC, my suggestion is stay slow, get draggy, and do NOT let go of the controls. Soon as you do that, you are merely a passenger. Use every bit of information available to you. Make note of your current heading (you should have a rough idea of where you were pointing when you lost sight of the ground). GPS is best for this, in my opinion, even if going backwards over the ground. If it starts to change, make a small, coordinated correction to stop it. If you were going backwards, it will increase the rate of turn, so be aware of ground track at all times. Hold an arm out straight in front of you to feel G load if you don't have a g meter available. This is a situation in which speed kills, so don't get too much of it. Spiral will have increasing speed and g load. If you made an input and it got worse, undo that and make one the other way.

If you are fast when it becomes IMC, try to get slow and draggy. Changing hands on the stick to lower the gear is probably not a good idea. The flying hand knows where the stick is. Again, speed kills in this situation. And again, don't become a passenger by letting go of the stick. Keep your focus on useful things in the cockpit. Airspeed, yaw string (well, not quite in the cockpit), anything that gives an indication of current direction of travel and also possible groundspeed with that. As Dave Nadler pointed out, spoilers out means less g load to break the plane. Lower speed means you can put less G on the plane before it stalls. Do everything you can to keep slow but controllable. Avoid the temptation to try and get speed to "dive out the bottom". Your goal is to come out in one piece. Whether that be out the side, bottom, or top. Easiest way to stay in one piece is to stay slow.

Read Kempton Izuno's article about his inadvertent cloud encounter. Listen to what is happening. Paying close attention to all the little things is what, I think, saved Kemp during his encounter.

My escape involved slowing from 80 or so indicated 50 knots (at about 16,000 feet over Eastern Colorado) while cranking the flaps down 90 degrees. I eased the stick back to slow down while cranking on the flaps, then eased it forward to hold the speed I wanted. Don't do anything abruptly. When I still didn't come out, I figured out I was in a right turn when I noticed the GPS Nav display heading was increasing. I knew which side of the cloud I had been running towards, so when heading was just short of that, I made a coordinated input to reduce or stop the turn. Took two inputs to stop the turn and come out the side.

As Bob K said, you have got to love 90 degree flaps. It did not matter that in lowering the flaps and slowing down, I went higher into the cloud. All that mattered was the speed was down and the aircraft was very speed stable with me holding the controls where they were. It can try to spiral, but with all that drag, you won't get going fast enough to hurt the plane. Same cannot be said for spoilered sailplanes. But, I still think your best bet is to get slow and get draggy.

Fly safe,
Steve Leonard

[Mike the Strike]

Some gliders have spoilers that can be deployed safely and will limit the speed without damage - I seem to remember this was the case with the Jantar-1 that I owned long ago. (That had top and bottom spoilers and a main spar seemingly made from an old railway line.) Other gliders won't take the stress, since deployment of spoilers kills lift from that part of the wing so the rest of the wing carries even more load. There is no question that the wings break outward of the spoilers under high g loads in some of these cases.

I have flown (legally) in cloud and these days prefer to stay out of them!

Mike

[jfitch]

On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 3:59:59 PM UTC-7, Steve Leonard wrote:
> Back to the OPs comment about being trimmed and climbing for altitude when you go IMC, my suggestion is stay slow, get draggy, and do NOT let go of the controls. Soon as you do that, you are merely a passenger. Use every bit of information available to you. Make note of your current heading (you should have a rough idea of where you were pointing when you lost sight of the ground). GPS is best for this, in my opinion, even if going backwards over the ground. If it starts to change, make a small, coordinated correction to stop it. If you were going backwards, it will increase the rate of turn, so be aware of ground track at all times. Hold an arm out straight in front of you to feel G load if you don't have a g meter available. This is a situation in which speed kills, so don't get too much of it. Spiral will have increasing speed and g load. If you made an input and it got worse, undo that and make one the other way.
>
> If you are fast when it becomes IMC, try to get slow and draggy. Changing hands on the stick to lower the gear is probably not a good idea. The flying hand knows where the stick is. Again, speed kills in this situation. And again, don't become a passenger by letting go of the stick. Keep your focus on useful things in the cockpit. Airspeed, yaw string (well, not quite in the cockpit), anything that gives an indication of current direction of travel and also possible groundspeed with that. As Dave Nadler pointed out, spoilers out means less g load to break the plane. Lower speed means you can put less G on the plane before it stalls. Do everything you can to keep slow but controllable. Avoid the temptation to try and get speed to "dive out the bottom". Your goal is to come out in one piece. Whether that be out the side, bottom, or top. Easiest way to stay in one piece is to stay slow.
>
> Read Kempton Izuno's article about his inadvertent cloud encounter. Listen to what is happening. Paying close attention to all the little things is what, I think, saved Kemp during his encounter.
>
> My escape involved slowing from 80 or so indicated 50 knots (at about 16,000 feet over Eastern Colorado) while cranking the flaps down 90 degrees. I eased the stick back to slow down while cranking on the flaps, then eased it forward to hold the speed I wanted. Don't do anything abruptly. When I still didn't come out, I figured out I was in a right turn when I noticed the GPS Nav display heading was increasing. I knew which side of the cloud I had been running towards, so when heading was just short of that, I made a coordinated input to reduce or stop the turn. Took two inputs to stop the turn and come out the side.
>
> As Bob K said, you have got to love 90 degree flaps. It did not matter that in lowering the flaps and slowing down, I went higher into the cloud. All that mattered was the speed was down and the aircraft was very speed stable with me holding the controls where they were. It can try to spiral, but with all that drag, you won't get going fast enough to hurt the plane. Same cannot be said for spoilered sailplanes. But, I still think your best bet is to get slow and get draggy.
>
> Fly safe,
> Steve Leonard

I believe Kempton also proved that though the manual may say not to deploy landing flaps at higher than a modest speed, you can do it, there may not be damage, and it may help save your life. My glider (same as his) will not do a benign spiral even in still air unless the spoilers are out and landing flaps deployed.

[Jonathon May[_2_]]

At 02:17 14 April 2015, jfitch wrote:
>On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 3:59:59 PM UTC-7, Steve Leonard wrote:
>> Back to the OPs comment about being trimmed and climbing for altitude
>whe=
>n you go IMC, my suggestion is stay slow, get draggy, and do NOT let go
of
>=
>the controls. Soon as you do that, you are merely a passenger. Use
every
>=
>bit of information available to you. Make note of your current heading
>(yo=
>u should have a rough idea of where you were pointing when you lost sight
>o=
>f the ground). GPS is best for this, in my opinion, even if going
>backward=
>s over the ground. If it starts to change, make a small, coordinated
>corre=
>ction to stop it. If you were going backwards, it will increase the rate
>o=
>f turn, so be aware of ground track at all times. Hold an arm out
>straight=
> in front of you to feel G load if you don't have a g meter available.
>Thi=
>s is a situation in which speed kills, so don't get too much of it.
>Spiral=
> will have increasing speed and g load. If you made an input and it got
>wo=
>rse, undo that and make one the other way.
>>=20
>> If you are fast when it becomes IMC, try to get slow and draggy.
>Changin=
>g hands on the stick to lower the gear is probably not a good idea. The
>fl=
>ying hand knows where the stick is. Again, speed kills in this
situation.
>=
> And again, don't become a passenger by letting go of the stick. Keep
>your=
> focus on useful things in the cockpit. Airspeed, yaw string (well, not
>qu=
>ite in the cockpit), anything that gives an indication of current
>direction=
> of travel and also possible groundspeed with that. As Dave Nadler
>pointed=
> out, spoilers out means less g load to break the plane. Lower speed
>means=
> you can put less G on the plane before it stalls. Do everything you can
>t=
>o keep slow but controllable. Avoid the temptation to try and get speed
>to=
> "dive out the bottom". Your goal is to come out in one piece. Whether
>th=
>at be out the side, bottom, or top. Easiest way to stay in one piece is
>to=
> stay slow.
>>=20
>> Read Kempton Izuno's article about his inadvertent cloud encounter.
>List=
>en to what is happening. Paying close attention to all the little things
>i=
>s what, I think, saved Kemp during his encounter.
>>=20
>> My escape involved slowing from 80 or so indicated 50 knots (at about
>16,=
>000 feet over Eastern Colorado) while cranking the flaps down 90 degrees.
>I=
> eased the stick back to slow down while cranking on the flaps, then
eased
>=
>it forward to hold the speed I wanted. Don't do anything abruptly. When
>I=
> still didn't come out, I figured out I was in a right turn when I
noticed
>=
>the GPS Nav display heading was increasing. I knew which side of the
>cloud=
> I had been running towards, so when heading was just short of that, I
>made=
> a coordinated input to reduce or stop the turn. Took two inputs to stop
>t=
>he turn and come out the side. =20
>>=20
>> As Bob K said, you have got to love 90 degree flaps. It did not matter
>t=
>hat in lowering the flaps and slowing down, I went higher into the cloud.

>=
>All that mattered was the speed was down and the aircraft was very speed
>st=
>able with me holding the controls where they were. It can try to spiral,
>b=
>ut with all that drag, you won't get going fast enough to hurt the plane.

>=
>Same cannot be said for spoilered sailplanes. But, I still think your
>best=
> bet is to get slow and get draggy.
>>=20
>> Fly safe,
>> Steve Leonard
>
>I believe Kempton also proved that though the manual may say not to
deploy
>=
>landing flaps at higher than a modest speed, you can do it, there may not
>b=
>e damage, and it may help save your life. My glider (same as his) will
not
>=
>do a benign spiral even in still air unless the spoilers are out and
>landin=
>g flaps deployed.

Not for us ,but how it can be done


http://www.chonday.com/Videos/pilotnewzdalnd1


>

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Can anyone tell me the Month and year of Mr. Kempton's article?

On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 7:17:16 PM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
> On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 3:59:59 PM UTC-7, Steve Leonard wrote:
> > Back to the OPs comment about being trimmed and climbing for altitude when you go IMC, my suggestion is stay slow, get draggy, and do NOT let go of the controls. Soon as you do that, you are merely a passenger. Use every bit of information available to you. Make note of your current heading (you should have a rough idea of where you were pointing when you lost sight of the ground). GPS is best for this, in my opinion, even if going backwards over the ground. If it starts to change, make a small, coordinated correction to stop it. If you were going backwards, it will increase the rate of turn, so be aware of ground track at all times. Hold an arm out straight in front of you to feel G load if you don't have a g meter available. This is a situation in which speed kills, so don't get too much of it. Spiral will have increasing speed and g load. If you made an input and it got worse, undo that and make one the other way.
> >
> > If you are fast when it becomes IMC, try to get slow and draggy. Changing hands on the stick to lower the gear is probably not a good idea. The flying hand knows where the stick is. Again, speed kills in this situation.. And again, don't become a passenger by letting go of the stick. Keep your focus on useful things in the cockpit. Airspeed, yaw string (well, not quite in the cockpit), anything that gives an indication of current direction of travel and also possible groundspeed with that. As Dave Nadler pointed out, spoilers out means less g load to break the plane. Lower speed means you can put less G on the plane before it stalls. Do everything you can to keep slow but controllable. Avoid the temptation to try and get speed to "dive out the bottom". Your goal is to come out in one piece. Whether that be out the side, bottom, or top. Easiest way to stay in one piece is to stay slow.
> >
> > Read Kempton Izuno's article about his inadvertent cloud encounter. Listen to what is happening. Paying close attention to all the little things is what, I think, saved Kemp during his encounter.
> >
> > My escape involved slowing from 80 or so indicated 50 knots (at about 16,000 feet over Eastern Colorado) while cranking the flaps down 90 degrees. I eased the stick back to slow down while cranking on the flaps, then eased it forward to hold the speed I wanted. Don't do anything abruptly. When I still didn't come out, I figured out I was in a right turn when I noticed the GPS Nav display heading was increasing. I knew which side of the cloud I had been running towards, so when heading was just short of that, I made a coordinated input to reduce or stop the turn. Took two inputs to stop the turn and come out the side.
> >
> > As Bob K said, you have got to love 90 degree flaps. It did not matter that in lowering the flaps and slowing down, I went higher into the cloud. All that mattered was the speed was down and the aircraft was very speed stable with me holding the controls where they were. It can try to spiral, but with all that drag, you won't get going fast enough to hurt the plane. Same cannot be said for spoilered sailplanes. But, I still think your best bet is to get slow and get draggy.
> >
> > Fly safe,
> > Steve Leonard
>
> I believe Kempton also proved that though the manual may say not to deploy landing flaps at higher than a modest speed, you can do it, there may not be damage, and it may help save your life. My glider (same as his) will not do a benign spiral even in still air unless the spoilers are out and landing flaps deployed.

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 2:27:40 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Can anyone tell me the Month and year of Mr. Kempton's article?
>
March 2006. Page 26.

[Bob Pasker]

there's also this:

http://www.pacificsoaring.org/westwind/2005_12_WestWind.pdf
"Into the Bowels of Darkness "

[Bob Pasker]

ok, i read Kemp's article, and although I'm hardly a proficient partial panel instrument pilot, here's what I know:

without a turn coordinator, you can tell which way you are turning using the whiskey compass. it'll get tossed around quite a bit, but it if you're turning, it'll be turning. the usually compass errors apply, but you can use one of them to your advantage: if you can turn to a heading of SOUTH, the compass will lead turns because of magnetic dip, and it increases its usefulness and sensitivity. North is the worst heading.

for pitch, the primary instrument should be airspeed, because in lift or sink the ALT won't tell you anything useful


On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 8:49:08 AM UTC-4, Bob Pasker wrote:
> there's also this:
>
> http://www.pacificsoaring.org/westwind/2005_12_WestWind.pdf
> "Into the Bowels of Darkness "

[Bill D]

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 7:25:30 AM UTC-6, Bob Pasker wrote:
> ok, i read Kemp's article, and although I'm hardly a proficient partial panel instrument pilot, here's what I know:
>
> without a turn coordinator, you can tell which way you are turning using the whiskey compass. it'll get tossed around quite a bit, but it if you're turning, it'll be turning. the usually compass errors apply, but you can use one of them to your advantage: if you can turn to a heading of SOUTH, the compass will lead turns because of magnetic dip, and it increases its usefulness and sensitivity. North is the worst heading.
>
> for pitch, the primary instrument should be airspeed, because in lift or sink the ALT won't tell you anything useful
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 8:49:08 AM UTC-4, Bob Pasker wrote:
> > there's also this:
> >
> > http://www.pacificsoaring.org/westwind/2005_12_WestWind.pdf
> > "Into the Bowels of Darkness "

The magnetic compass south leading error is real and in perfect conditions a highly skilled partial panel pilot can keep the wings level using it. However, it's like balancing a stick on your finger. It can be done for a while but when one loses it, it's gone and you can't recover. Like most other ideas in this thread, it's a last ditch desperation move when all better options are gone.

[Dan Marotta]

I've been instrument rated for over 40 years and, at one time, was
highly proficient at partial panel.

I have a non-gyro, instant-on turn indicator in my panel which may help.

I have no illusions of pulling off what Kempton did without the same
luck that he had that day.

I'm proficient in the use of my parachute and hope the loading will be
light or negative when it's time to use it.

On 4/15/2015 7:53 AM, Bill D wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 7:25:30 AM UTC-6, Bob Pasker wrote:
>> ok, i read Kemp's article, and although I'm hardly a proficient partial panel instrument pilot, here's what I know:
>>
>> without a turn coordinator, you can tell which way you are turning using the whiskey compass. it'll get tossed around quite a bit, but it if you're turning, it'll be turning. the usually compass errors apply, but you can use one of them to your advantage: if you can turn to a heading of SOUTH, the compass will lead turns because of magnetic dip, and it increases its usefulness and sensitivity. North is the worst heading.
>>
>> for pitch, the primary instrument should be airspeed, because in lift or sink the ALT won't tell you anything useful
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 8:49:08 AM UTC-4, Bob Pasker wrote:
>>> there's also this:
>>>
>>> http://www.pacificsoaring.org/westwind/2005_12_WestWind.pdf
>>> "Into the Bowels of Darkness"
> The magnetic compass south leading error is real and in perfect conditions a highly skilled partial panel pilot can keep the wings level using it. However, it's like balancing a stick on your finger. It can be done for a while but when one loses it, it's gone and you can't recover. Like most other ideas in this thread, it's a last ditch desperation move when all better options are gone.

--
Dan Marotta

[Bob Pasker]

agreed!

with you and with Dan Marotta

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 9:53:08 AM UTC-4, Bill D wrote:
> The magnetic compass south leading error is real and in perfect conditions a highly skilled partial panel pilot can keep the wings level using it. However, it's like balancing a stick on your finger. It can be done for a while but when one loses it, it's gone and you can't recover. Like most other ideas in this thread, it's a last ditch desperation move when all better options are gone.

[krasw]

On Wednesday, 15 April 2015 16:25:30 UTC+3, Bob Pasker wrote:
> ok, i read Kemp's article, and although I'm hardly a proficient partial panel instrument pilot, here's what I know:
>
> without a turn coordinator, you can tell which way you are turning using the whiskey compass. it'll get tossed around quite a bit, but it if you're turning, it'll be turning.

Depends on compass obviously, but as a rule, no it doesn't.

[bumper[_4_]]

Unless you frequently win the lottery, I wouldn't count on having the kind of luck Kemp had that day. I cheated death one day in an Aeronca Champ, real low maybe 200 feet over the ocean scud running then suddenly into the soup . . . 180 no gyro turn, roll to what I thought might be straight. Wait . .. then finally into the clear with only a little nose down.

I was current on instruments but didn't have any. It was smooth air, or would have been worse. Scared? Yup, very. I have a truetrack in the glider and will install a Butterfly.

[son_of_flubber]

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 6:49:48 PM UTC-4, bumper wrote:
>I cheated death one day in an Aeronca Champ, real low maybe 200 feet over the ocean scud running then suddenly into the soup . . .

I've been reading up on VMC --> IMC and 'horizon disappears' gets mentioned, for example over the ocean... and even before you enter the soup, you become disorientated.

I'm pretty sure that the horizon has disappeared on me in flight (other than the common case of landing in a valley below close-in hills/mountains.) How pernicious is the disappearing horizon? Is it a matter of you're okay, until you're not okay? What are the 'gotchas'?

And getting back to the original scenario... I'm turning in the blue hole and when I face the downwind cloud, there is nothing but cloud in my visual field. And how about when diving through the cloud deck, down through a blue hole. Am I'm falsely confident to think that I have had a firm grasp of where up and down are relative to my wings?

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

On 4/15/2015 7:31 PM, son_of_flubber wrote:
<Snip...>
> And getting back to the original scenario... I'm turning in the blue hole
> and when I face the downwind cloud, there is nothing but cloud in my visual
> field. And how about when diving through the cloud deck, down through a
> blue hole. Am I'm falsely confident to think that I have had a firm grasp
> of where up and down are relative to my wings?

Hmmm... Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the scenario/question, but if any pilot
in an airborne cockpit imagines that in the absence of an established visual
horizon they can continue to have any real idea of where up and down are
relative to ANYthing, they're also likely imagine there's no evil in the
world. The point I'm trying to make is there's sound, long-known, reasons an
instrument rating is a separate rating. Any glider pilot entering IMC and also
lacking the requisite instruments and training in a ship incapable of
hands-off flight while still remaining well below maneuvering speed (and there
aren't many such gliders out there), is guaranteed one of two outcomes: 1) the
luck to re-establish a visual horizon before 2) occurs; or 2) (very soon after
entering IMC) ship structural failure (spiral dive/overstress).

Unintended flight into IMC is seriously bad news to Joe Unprepared Pilot's
near-term future health. In my book, the concept of "the benign glider spiral"
- which has received much print exposure, including from at least one highly
experienced, paid, triple diamond, test pilot (Einar Enevoldsen) - isn't
anything I'd be willing to bet MY life on. I think of it as an intellectually
and quite possibly "plaything-interesting," attribute which has some small
possibility of saving my bacon (by buying me some time) if I'm so bold or so
unfortunate as to unintentionally go IMC. Short of being able to test fly
every flavor of glider mentioned by others in this thread as having some
amount of "benign spiral ability" (ranging from "none" to "lots") to convince
oneself the posters are accurate in their shared information, all one can
reasonably do is infer from others experiences. I infer "the benign spiral" is
a pretty thin hook from which to hang my life.

Yeah, Kempton Izuno "got away with" his mistake (which I'll bet many glider
pilots have made, me included, but I had "the good sense" to make mine in a
ship with large deflection landing flaps, and so didn't experience Kempton's
adrenaline rush). Don't be fooled by the fact he was aided by keeping his wits
about him, because only luck enabled him to blunder to the visual edge of his
cloud before his time ran out. Ask him if he'd wish to encounter the same
scenario in the same exact ship again.

Bob W.

[Bruce Hoult]

On Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 1:32:00 PM UTC+12, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 6:49:48 PM UTC-4, bumper wrote:
> >I cheated death one day in an Aeronca Champ, real low maybe 200 feet over the ocean scud running then suddenly into the soup . . .
>
> I've been reading up on VMC --> IMC and 'horizon disappears' gets mentioned, for example over the ocean... and even before you enter the soup, you become disorientated.
>
> I'm pretty sure that the horizon has disappeared on me in flight (other than the common case of landing in a valley below close-in hills/mountains.) How pernicious is the disappearing horizon? Is it a matter of you're okay, until you're not okay? What are the 'gotchas'?
>
> And getting back to the original scenario... I'm turning in the blue hole and when I face the downwind cloud, there is nothing but cloud in my visual field. And how about when diving through the cloud deck, down through a blue hole. Am I'm falsely confident to think that I have had a firm grasp of where up and down are relative to my wings?

I've never found an actual literal horizon to be important e.g. flying in mountain valleys presents no problem for orientation or speed control.

What is important (for me anyway) is to have some visible fixed and immobile point that is sufficiently far away that its short term movement in the canopy is as a result of changes in the glider's attitude, and not the glider's movement. Or, to reverse that, if it's not moving in the canopy then you're keeping a constant attitude and heading.

I've done some night IMC flying on freight runs in a Cessna Caravan (and GAF Nomad, incidentally) as an unofficial copilot. I found that I had no trouble with IMC flying as long as I could see either wisps of cloud going past us, or at least one star, or at least one farmhouse light. Even if you're seeing those things unconsciously, out of the corner of your eye, when you think you're *actually* looking at the instruments. When you don't have any of those things it's suddenly much much harder.

[Kevin Brooker]

"I'm proficient in the use of my parachute and hope the loading will be
light or negative when it's time to use it."

Many responders,including the OP who at least considers it, have eluded to using the 'chute to escape as a last ditch effort. True, it is but jumping in smooth air has its issues just as complicated as going IMC. With a few assumptions and generalities there is a lot to consider.

Jumping in a wave situation has its own unique set of problems. I made a cursory look at the decent rate for a typical emergency chute and most are about 5m/s which is what the OP stated as the climb rate in wave. You won't descend until you move into an area of lesser lift. Find the sweet spot and you might go up. What altitude is it when you jump? W/o a jump bottle there is a good chance for LOC. if I recall correctly, in freefall, the loss of altitude is about 10,000/minute. Do you have the ability to not pull the cord for 90 seconds, in IMC, with no skydiving experience? What about temps? -20 to -30F are pretty common at altitude and are you prepared to hang in the harness and not freeze to death assuming the windchill of a 100+ mph freefall doesn't get you first? Surviving also assumes your 'chute remains functional descending through the rotor should you find it.

Just food for thought on hitting the silk.

[krasw]

torstai 16. huhtikuuta 2015 6.19.30 UTC+3 Bob Whelan kirjoitti:
> Unintended flight into IMC is seriously bad news to Joe Unprepared Pilot's
> near-term future health. In my book, the concept of "the benign glider spiral"
> - which has received much print exposure, including from at least one highly
> experienced, paid, triple diamond, test pilot (Einar Enevoldsen) - isn't
> anything I'd be willing to bet MY life on. I think of it as an intellectually
> and quite possibly "plaything-interesting," attribute which has some small
> possibility of saving my bacon (by buying me some time) if I'm so bold or so
> unfortunate as to unintentionally go IMC. Short of being able to test fly
> every flavor of glider mentioned by others in this thread as having some
> amount of "benign spiral ability" (ranging from "none" to "lots") to convince
> oneself the posters are accurate in their shared information, all one can
> reasonably do is infer from others experiences. I infer "the benign spiral" is
> a pretty thin hook from which to hang my life.
>

Exactly. Way glider usually goes out of control in cloud is when bank angle increases and pilot fails to counter that with aileron or pulling to keep nose up. It takes only few seconds to end up in violent spiral, nose down and steep bank.

In addition, in actual imc there is turbulence, and inadverted imc means you are out of control to begin with. It is a whole different thing putting your glider to "uncontrolled bening spiral" in calm air and vmc than inside cloud, hanging up in harness with no visual reference. Just open airbrakes, wait and pray (you might change the sequence of last two items, but not the first).

[Dan Marotta]

Here's what the FAA says about the chances of a non-instrument rated
pilot in IMC:
http://www.aopa.org/AOPA-Live.aspx?watch=%7BCCA30EA1-A94D-4E45-ABCD-3AD4074403E0%7D

Regarding temperature, oxygen, etc., you have a better chance with a
bail out than riding to the ground.

I recall from my military training that the descent rate in a C-9, 28
foot round canopy was 19 feet/second. I'm pretty sure my 280 sq ft ram
air parachute has a much lower descent rate, but it has a much better
forward speed and controllability. I think basic situational awareness
(and I realize that a lot of people these days lack it) would have me
aware of cloud base and thickness during a wave flight so I wouldn't be
concerned about free falling through the clouds if that was required.

If you think about it, it's really pretty hard to get sucked up into a
cloud without first putting yourself into the situation. Not so for
having a cloud form around you, but even then you should know of the
possibility and plan accordingly.

On 4/15/2015 7:31 PM, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 6:49:48 PM UTC-4, bumper wrote:
>> I cheated death one day in an Aeronca Champ, real low maybe 200 feet over the ocean scud running then suddenly into the soup . . .
> I've been reading up on VMC --> IMC and 'horizon disappears' gets mentioned, for example over the ocean... and even before you enter the soup, you become disorientated.
>
> I'm pretty sure that the horizon has disappeared on me in flight (other than the common case of landing in a valley below close-in hills/mountains.) How pernicious is the disappearing horizon? Is it a matter of you're okay, until you're not okay? What are the 'gotchas'?
>
> And getting back to the original scenario... I'm turning in the blue hole and when I face the downwind cloud, there is nothing but cloud in my visual field. And how about when diving through the cloud deck, down through a blue hole. Am I'm falsely confident to think that I have had a firm grasp of where up and down are relative to my wings?
>
>

--
Dan Marotta

[kirk.stant]

IMC conditions can sneak up on you even when you aren't near clouds. Where I fly in southeastern IL final glides tend to be to the West - often directly into the Sun, late in the afternoon. Combine that with a really hazy late summer day and maybe some dust on your canopy and you can end up gliding into the proverbial milk bowl - no horizon, just the Sun above and some terrain features directly below. Thermalling in this situation can be interesting - when you are facing away from the Sun the horizon reappears, then it gradually blends away as you turn through west. Without an attitude indicator, I found speed control while thermalling had to be maintained by observing the height of the Sun when the horizon was gone!

A bit creepy, especially since while it was technically VMC, it was practically IMC, and "see and avoid" pretty much a joke. Thank goodness for GPS and PCAS!

Bottom line - use what you have, but don't even THINK you can casually escape from inadvertent flight in IMC conditions without training and gyro instruments (or terminal velocity brakes).

Kirk
66

[Matt Herron Jr.]

how about a ballistic chute for the plane?

Might even want the option to cut the chute away if you came out the bottom and still had enough altitude/clearance to recover from a "freefall" launch from 0 airspeed.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Kind of off topic but not really, can you still purchase a boli (spelling?) compass?

[Bill D]

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 7:32:00 PM UTC-6, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 6:49:48 PM UTC-4, bumper wrote:
> >I cheated death one day in an Aeronca Champ, real low maybe 200 feet over the ocean scud running then suddenly into the soup . . .
>
> I've been reading up on VMC --> IMC and 'horizon disappears' gets mentioned, for example over the ocean... and even before you enter the soup, you become disorientated.
>
> I'm pretty sure that the horizon has disappeared on me in flight (other than the common case of landing in a valley below close-in hills/mountains.) How pernicious is the disappearing horizon? Is it a matter of you're okay, until you're not okay? What are the 'gotchas'?
>
> And getting back to the original scenario... I'm turning in the blue hole and when I face the downwind cloud, there is nothing but cloud in my visual field. And how about when diving through the cloud deck, down through a blue hole. Am I'm falsely confident to think that I have had a firm grasp of where up and down are relative to my wings?

There are, in fact, piles of smashed aluminum resulting from "flatlanders" attempting to fly in Colorado mountains without a proper checkout.

A "lost horizon" when flying in a deep valley is often a problem for pilots who learned to fly with sole reference to the actual horizon as seen from over the Great Plains. Easterners who learned in haze and westerners who learned in mountains seem to do OK since they learned right from the beginning of their training to use airspeed to control pitch attitude. Every pilot has a "comfort zone".

I've seen pilots who keep pulling the nose higher and higher so it pointed at the line between the rocks and sky even though those rocks were on top of a 14,000' mountain. When I took the controls to save us and levelled the airplane, they said it looked to them as if we were diving since the windshield was completely filled with mountain. It ain't Kansas anymore, Dorothy.

Total loss of all visual references is significantly different from a partial loss. Even small peripheral cues are enough to get a sense of the aircraft's attitude but beware of erroneous, misleading cues such as cloud tops. More than one wave pilot has stalled when gliding toward a lennie as they unconsciously kept the nose aimed at the cloud top as the glider descended.. Tilted cloud layers or tilted terrain also provide false cues to the unwary pilot.

A sudden transition to "blind flying" can also be disorientating. I recall sucking in my breath the first time I took off from a remote airport on a dark, overcast night. When the bright airport lights were replaced by total darkness as I passed over the departure end is seemed as if I have flown into a black hole. Although it was technically VMC, the airplane could only be flown by instruments. I've learned to take a deep breath, wiggle my toes and "settle down" on instruments before punching into cloud.

It's sometimes said that pilots who can't fly solely with reference to instruments have not completed their training. Considering the weirdness out there, that's probably true.

[Mike the Strike]

I recall sucking in my breath the first time I took off from a remote airport on a dark, overcast night. When the bright airport lights were replaced by total darkness as I passed over the departure end is seemed as if I have flown into a black hole. Although it was technically VMC, the airplane could only be flown by instruments. I've learned to take a deep breath, wiggle my toes and "settle down" on instruments before punching into cloud.
>
> It's sometimes said that pilots who can't fly solely with reference to instruments have not completed their training. Considering the weirdness out there, that's probably true.

When renewing my single-engine licence in Arizona, I discovered the joys of what is euphemistically called "Night VFR" when overflying Sky Harbor and then disappearing into the dark desert towards Gila Bend. No moon, no lights on the ground - this was full instrument flying! Only in the USA!

Mike

[Bruce Hoult]

On Friday, April 17, 2015 at 12:42:08 PM UTC+12, Mike the Strike wrote:
> I recall sucking in my breath the first time I took off from a remote airport on a dark, overcast night. When the bright airport lights were replaced by total darkness as I passed over the departure end is seemed as if I have flown into a black hole. Although it was technically VMC, the airplane could only be flown by instruments. I've learned to take a deep breath, wiggle my toes and "settle down" on instruments before punching into cloud.
> >
> > It's sometimes said that pilots who can't fly solely with reference to instruments have not completed their training. Considering the weirdness out there, that's probably true.
>
> When renewing my single-engine licence in Arizona, I discovered the joys of what is euphemistically called "Night VFR" when overflying Sky Harbor and then disappearing into the dark desert towards Gila Bend. No moon, no lights on the ground - this was full instrument flying! Only in the USA!

Or Australia. Or parts of New Zealand. Probably parts of South America or Africa too, though they are more heavily populated.

I have overflown Wellington airport at 3000 ft heading south at about 4 AM on a moonless and stormy winter night. Nothing except ocean between us and Antarctica or South America (depending on which way you're facing). Ten miles out we started a 180 degree left turn to intercept the ILS for runway 34.. I was hand flying it. The actual pilot suggested I check the missed approach procedure and handed me the book. After a few seconds in which we both studied the page I looked up at the instruments and noticed that the line separating brown and blue was nearly vertical, and the airspeed was increasing rapidly. I started the (correct!) recovery about half a second before the other guy started to go for the controls. I think he was more worried by my sudden control input than by any sensation that anything was wrong. As the aircraft was trimmed I don't think the G loading changed significantly before I started the recovery. We lost 1000 ft very quickly.

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

>> I recall sucking in my breath the first time I took off from a remote
>> airport on a dark, overcast night. When the bright airport lights were
>> replaced by total darkness as I passed over the departure end is seemed
>> as if I have flown into a black hole. Although it was technically VMC,
>> the airplane could only be flown by instruments. I've learned to take a
>> deep breath, wiggle my toes and "settle down" on instruments before
>> punching into cloud.
>>>
>>> It's sometimes said that pilots who can't fly solely with reference to
>>> instruments have not completed their training. Considering the
>>> weirdness out there, that's probably true.
>>
>> When renewing my single-engine licence in Arizona, I discovered the joys
>> of what is euphemistically called "Night VFR" when overflying Sky Harbor
>> and then disappearing into the dark desert towards Gila Bend. No moon,
>> no lights on the ground - this was full instrument flying! Only in the
>> USA!
>
> Or Australia. Or parts of New Zealand. Probably parts of South America or
> Africa too, though they are more heavily populated.

Strictly speaking, we're drifting away from "a soaring connection" in the
above replies (and this one, too) but as the Easter Reno AS W-27 breakup
dramatically showed, unintentional flight into IMC can and does occur in our
"strictly VMC world" too. I hope that any readers who may have come to this
thread originally imagining "their skills are somehow special" when it comes
to maintaining control in IMC conditions have begun to grasp reality...which
is continuing controlled flight in IMC conditions is 100% dependent on having
- and being able to effectively use - instrumentation providing an accurate
reference horizon...clouds or not.

In the U.S., this reality began to become apparent - so far as I'm aware -
with a few fortunate airmail pilots in the early 1920s, soon followed by
similarly fortunate military airmen. Jimmy Doolittle is credited with the
first successful 100% blind takeoff, flight, and circuit to a landing without
any outside-the-cockpit visual references (9/24/29). By the mid-30's even "the
average Joe Military pilot" was becoming convinced that no amount of macho
could save their necks in IMC...and it was becoming ever more apparent that
the nighttime "black hole effect" mentioned above by other posters was real.

Kids, IMC is serious stuff...with or without the proper instrumentation and
training.

Bob W.

[son_of_flubber]

On Friday, April 17, 2015 at 10:49:38 AM UTC-4, Bob Whelan wrote:

> IMC is serious stuff...with or without the proper instrumentation and
> training.

IMC is just part of the picture.

1.I'm starting to think that IMC training, currency, and installed instrumentation is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for me to fly in wave (especially wet wave).

But there're other factors:

2.Ability to recover from upset induced by turbulence and/or IMC disorientation. (aka Upset Recovery Training)

3.A glider that is less likely to shed it's wings with the spoilers open and a negative load factor.

4.Readiness to bail out and acceptance of the increased probability of a bail-out in cold, high altitude and turbulent air. Training and confidence in parachuting ability.

5.Ability and instrumentation to descend through IMC without colliding with terrain.

6.Preparedness and willingness to land out well downwind of the departure airport and possibly land in the trees.

All of these factors are relevant in non-wave soaring as well, but the probabilities are less favorable in wave.

[BobW]

On 4/17/2015 10:30 AM, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Friday, April 17, 2015 at 10:49:38 AM UTC-4, Bob Whelan wrote:
>
>> IMC is serious stuff...with or without the proper instrumentation and
>> training.
>
> IMC is just part of the picture.
>
> 1.I'm starting to think that IMC training, currency, and installed
> instrumentation is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for me to fly
> in wave (especially wet wave).
>
> But there're other factors:
>
> 2.Ability to recover from upset induced by turbulence and/or IMC
> disorientation. (aka Upset Recovery Training)
>
> 3.A glider that is less likely to shed it's wings with the spoilers open
> and a negative load factor.
>
> 4.Readiness to bail out and acceptance of the increased probability of a
> bail-out in cold, high altitude and turbulent air. Training and confidence
> in parachuting ability.
>
> 5.Ability and instrumentation to descend through IMC without colliding with
> terrain.
>
> 6.Preparedness and willingness to land out well downwind of the departure
> airport and possibly land in the trees.
>
> All of these factors are relevant in non-wave soaring as well, but the
> probabilities are less favorable in wave.

No pun intended - "Spot on!"

Bob W.

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

<Snips...>

>> IMC is serious stuff...with or without the proper instrumentation and
>> training.
>
> IMC is just part of the picture.
>
> 1.I'm starting to think that IMC training, currency, and installed
> instrumentation is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for me to fly
> in wave (especially wet wave).
>
> But there're other factors:
>
> 2.Ability to recover from upset induced by turbulence and/or IMC
> disorientation. (aka Upset Recovery Training)
>
> 3.A glider that is less likely to shed it's wings with the spoilers open
> and a negative load factor.
>
> 4.Readiness to bail out and acceptance of the increased probability of a
> bail-out in cold, high altitude and turbulent air. Training and confidence
> in parachuting ability.
>
> 5.Ability and instrumentation to descend through IMC without colliding with
> terrain.
>
> 6.Preparedness and willingness to land out well downwind of the departure
> airport and possibly land in the trees.
>
> All of these factors are relevant in non-wave soaring as well, but the
> probabilities are less favorable in wave.

Again...right you are!

Maybe I was lucky, or, I'm more cowardly than many (I prefer to think of it as
having an active imagination!), but the very first gliding book I found in the
library after learning of the sport from my first after-collich-officemate was
Joe Lincoln's "Soaring for Diamonds." In my cowardly ignorance, his tales of
his cu-nim-IMC attempts to snag his altitude diamond, thoroughly intimidated
me. One of my next soaring books was 'Old Dog' Wolters's "Once Upon a Thermal"
(in which a pilot dies in "your wave").

Both are great books.

The only time I've felt "entirely comfortable" looking for >18k wave was in a
large-deflection-landing-flap-equipped ship with two entirely independent O2
systems. That said, most of my time in Colorado's essentially/mostly dry
waves, has been in a (similarly-flap-equipped) ship with but one (pressure
demand) O2 system, and - though I once (maybe twice) went above FL30 level in
it - I soon decided FL25 was plenty high enough under the circumstances, and
when Denver ARTCC began to require "IFR-like" radio contact in the wave
window, had no serious regrets self-limiting myself thereafter to below
18,000' feet.

So put me in the category who believes: "Flight to altitudes where additional
life-support systems are physiologically *required* (as distinct from merely
"probably a Really Good Idea independent of FAA regulations"), is Serious
Stuff...even without the possibility of inadvertent IMC.

Bob W.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

All the below is true. I am an IFR rated pilot with IFR privileges in single and multi-engine airplane and helicopter (kind of rare). AS I said very early in this thread have a plan that you developed with an instructor, get an instant on AH, get some IFR training in a powered aircraft every year control (straight AND level, turns..) and unusual attitude recovery, don't bother with departures and approaches) and you will give yourself a good chance of staying in control for a few minutes, maybe enough to get out of the cloud. There is a reason IFR privileges do not apply one rating for all aircraft. Note there is no IFR rating for gliders. Hope for the best, plan for the worst, which is why I always dress to egress also.


stay safe and never stop thinking about what if...

On Friday, April 17, 2015 at 9:30:39 AM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Friday, April 17, 2015 at 10:49:38 AM UTC-4, Bob Whelan wrote:
>
> > IMC is serious stuff...with or without the proper instrumentation and
> > training.
>
> IMC is just part of the picture.
>
> 1.I'm starting to think that IMC training, currency, and installed instrumentation is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for me to fly in wave (especially wet wave).
>
> But there're other factors:
>
> 2.Ability to recover from upset induced by turbulence and/or IMC disorientation. (aka Upset Recovery Training)
>
> 3.A glider that is less likely to shed it's wings with the spoilers open and a negative load factor.
>
> 4.Readiness to bail out and acceptance of the increased probability of a bail-out in cold, high altitude and turbulent air. Training and confidence in parachuting ability.
>
> 5.Ability and instrumentation to descend through IMC without colliding with terrain.
>
> 6.Preparedness and willingness to land out well downwind of the departure airport and possibly land in the trees.
>
> All of these factors are relevant in non-wave soaring as well, but the probabilities are less favorable in wave.

[waremark]

It sounds as though deliberate cloud flying of gliders is much more common in the UK and some other European countries than where most of you fly. Hitherto no special rating has been required in the UK but a glider cloud flying rating has recently been introduced and may be required in due course for any glider flight not under vfr. Equipping gliders with A-H's is routine, most newer ones now being equipped with instant on electronic devices (In many cases, internal to flight computers).

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 12:36:48 PM UTC-7, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Kind of off topic but not really, can you still purchase a boli (spelling?) compass?

Bohli is a nice compass no doubt. But no subst for real AH. my 2 cents.

[son_of_flubber]

On Friday, April 17, 2015 at 9:45:57 PM UTC-4, waremark wrote:
> It sounds as though deliberate cloud flying of gliders is much more common in the UK

What do you think of depending on basic IFR training in Single Engine Light aircraft as preparation for inadvertent emergency cloud flying in a glider?

Does anyone in the UK offer glider cloud flying training for visiting USA licensed glider pilots?

[krasw]

Latest Easa regulation calls for 2 hrs instruction for glider cloud flying rating (plus theory). Previously our national rating required 5 hrs instruction and even that did not feel like too much. Cloud flying is quite common in UK, Eastern Europe and Scandinavia, i think.

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 03:57:30 -0700, son_of_flubber wrote:

> Does anyone in the UK offer glider cloud flying training for visiting
> USA licensed glider pilots?

I don't know about the situation for visiting pilots at my club but then
again I don't think any have asked. I have no idea how you'd get the
cloud flying rating added to an American license or whether it would be
recognised by the FAA.

Some of our instructors are teaching cloud flying in our Schreibe SF-25
in preparation the introduction of EASA licensing. There is a BGA cloud
flying qualification which is not currently required, but its worth
getting prior to EASA licensing because it will be grandfathered onto the
EASA license: getting it after the license is issued will incur a charge
for adding the rating.


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

[Dan Marotta]

While the training you could get in the UK would be of benefit if you
"inadvertently" get caught in cloud, you still could not legally fly a
glider in clouds in the US. Note that if the FAA learned that you'd
been caught in a cloud, they could very well take certificate action
against you for violating cloud clearance regulations.

Note further that to fly in clouds in the US the pilot has to have an
instrument rating and there is no such thing for gliders in the US. The
aircraft also has to be certified for flight in IMC which includes such
mundane things as a certified attitude indicator, altimeter, gyro
compass (maybe), pitot/static checks, etc.

Training would be helpful if you remain unaware of your surroundings but
I maintain that part of being pilot in command is being sure that that
doesn't happen. Having said that, I have a TruTrac mounted in my panel
and have a boat load of training and actual IMC flying and I still
wouldn't give myself a 100% chance of coming out the bottom or side of a
cloud in straight and level flight given the circumstances that started
this thread.

Good flying!

On 4/18/2015 7:02 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 03:57:30 -0700, son_of_flubber wrote:
>
>> Does anyone in the UK offer glider cloud flying training for visiting
>> USA licensed glider pilots?
> I don't know about the situation for visiting pilots at my club but then
> again I don't think any have asked. I have no idea how you'd get the
> cloud flying rating added to an American license or whether it would be
> recognised by the FAA.
>
> Some of our instructors are teaching cloud flying in our Schreibe SF-25
> in preparation the introduction of EASA licensing. There is a BGA cloud
> flying qualification which is not currently required, but its worth
> getting prior to EASA licensing because it will be grandfathered onto the
> EASA license: getting it after the license is issued will incur a charge
> for adding the rating.
>
>

--
Dan Marotta

[waremark]

You have already had a couple of sensible replies. It is early days in terms of formalised regulation and training for cloud flying in the UK. My club plans to offer suitable training in a motor glider but has not yet started to do so. In a year or two there may be better defined training programmes..

Up to now, pilots who cloud fly have generally been self taught, learning by trial and error. I wonder what you understand by 'basic IFR training?' I have an IMC rating for my single engine PPL - a low level rating for flying in IMC, which you can get after 15 hours flight training and practical and written tests. The tests include partial panel recovery from unusual attitudes. This was sufficient to get me grandfather rights for the future EASA cloud flying requirements. It was also sufficient to make me comfortably able to thermal in cloud with the benefit of a an A-H. However, when I do so I know that I am vulnerable to not having the resilience or redundancy of instrumentation required for powered flight in IMC. My backup plan for loss of control or instrumentation is to open the air brakes before the speed gets high.

[[email protected]]

Have you looked at FAR 61.57 ?

"
(6) Maintaining instrument recent experience in a glider.

(i) Within the 6 calendar months preceding the month of the flight, that person must have performed and logged at least the following instrument currency tasks, iterations, and flight time, and the instrument currency must have been performed in actual weather conditions or under simulated weather conditions--

(A) One hour of instrument flight time in a glider or in a single engine airplane using a view-limiting device while performing interception and tracking courses through the use of navigation electronic systems.

(B) Two hours of instrument flight time in a glider or a single engine airplane with the use of a view-limiting device while performing straight glides, turns to specific headings, steep turns, flight at various airspeeds, navigation, and slow flight and stalls.

(ii) Before a pilot is allowed to carry a passenger in a glider under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR, that pilot must--

(A) Have logged and performed 2 hours of instrument flight time in a glider within the 6 calendar months preceding the month of the flight.

(B) Use a view-limiting-device while practicing performance maneuvers, performance airspeeds, navigation, slow flight, and stalls.
"


So there is at least some FAA framework for glider IFR.

Todd Smith
3S

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

I certainly would not "depend" on basic IFR training for an inadvertent excursion into the clouds, but it should be part of the quiver of skills and preparation. Most training single engine aircraft are very stable and will re-establish level flight if you take your hands off the controls. Try the IFR training in a MD 500, that is rather thrilling :)

On Saturday, April 18, 2015 at 3:57:33 AM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Friday, April 17, 2015 at 9:45:57 PM UTC-4, waremark wrote:
> > It sounds as though deliberate cloud flying of gliders is much more common in the UK
>
> What do you think of depending on basic IFR training in Single Engine Light aircraft as preparation for inadvertent emergency cloud flying in a glider?
>
> Does anyone in the UK offer glider cloud flying training for visiting USA licensed glider pilots?

[son_of_flubber]

Does anyone know the history of glider cloud flying in the USA? Was it ever allowed under FAR?

Was the prohibition part of the negotiation that allowed the XPNDR exemption for gliders?

If it were allowed, would it play out any differently in the USA than it has in the UK?

Did Lucky Chucker has an AH over Reno? Was he current with IFR? Did he practice IFR in his glider?

If it were allowed under the FARs, I think people would have proper instruments installed and training in motor gliders would be available in the USA.

Installing instruments that you're not allowed to use without declaration of an emergency is a rather odd state of affairs.

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

I hope any alert and better-informed readers will correct any errors of fact
which may follow, but here's my non-anally-informed input...

> Does anyone know the history of glider cloud flying in the USA? Was it
> ever allowed under FAR?

A comment regarding the trailing question above...the FARs/CFRs don't
prescribe what is possible, rather what is impossible (by regulation). If it
ain't forbidden, it's legal...even if perhaps not the wisest of acts.

Yes, cloud flying was legal at one time for gliders in the U.S. My
casually-educated guess is it became - for all practical purposes - illegal
after the 1955 mid-air between a DC-7 and a Constellation over the Grand
Canyon, after which the guts of today's ATC became the regulation of the
land...assigned IFR cruising altitudes, continuous radar contact, etc.

Johnny Robinson was probably the first U.S. glider pilot to become proficient
on instruments inside convective clouds, and at one time it wasn't rare to
(legally) go after diamond altitude climbs inside towering cu. Robinson once
essentially doubled the score of the pilot in 2nd place in a Wichita Falls
(working from memory) contest during a moist spell; as the only
instrument-capable pilot in that contest, he told me he spent the bulk of the
contest running out the side of one cu into the next, several thousands of
feet above cloud base.
- - - - - -

> Was the prohibition part of the negotiation that allowed the XPNDR
> exemption for gliders?

Transponders came along later.
- - - - - -

> If it were allowed, would it play out any differently in the USA than it
> has in the UK?

Now THERE's an open-ended question...! :)
- - - - - -

> Did Lucky Chucker has an AH over Reno? Was he current with IFR? Did he
> practice IFR in his glider?

Indeed inquiring minds would like to know. As (so it's my belief) an ex Thud
driver, I'd expect him to have been quite instrument proficient once upon a
time, but the devil is in the details...
- - - - - -

Bob W.

[Peter Smith[_3_]]

On Monday, April 20, 2015 at 8:14:03 PM UTC-4, son_of_flubber wrote:
> Does anyone know the history of glider cloud flying in the USA? Was it ever allowed under FAR?
>
> Was the prohibition part of the negotiation that allowed the XPNDR exemption for gliders?
>
> If it were allowed, would it play out any differently in the USA than it has in the UK?
>
> Did Lucky Chucker has an AH over Reno? Was he current with IFR? Did he practice IFR in his glider?
>
> If it were allowed under the FARs, I think people would have proper instruments installed and training in motor gliders would be available in the USA.
>
> Installing instruments that you're not allowed to use without declaration of an emergency is a rather odd state of affairs.

My father, Stan Smith, installed an AH from a WWII German bomber in his Schweizer 1-21. During the 1957 Nationals, which he won, he flew most of the way from Harris Hill to Syracuse in wave & in cloud. Soon after he took off, it started pouring at Harris Hill. 1 or 2 other pilots managed to glide just far enough to make it a contest day. I have Dad's log books, in which he regularly noted his cloud-flying time.

[Bill D]

On Monday, April 20, 2015 at 6:14:03 PM UTC-6, son_of_flubber wrote:
> Does anyone know the history of glider cloud flying in the USA? Was it ever allowed under FAR?
>
> Was the prohibition part of the negotiation that allowed the XPNDR exemption for gliders?
>
> If it were allowed, would it play out any differently in the USA than it has in the UK?
>
> Did Lucky Chucker has an AH over Reno? Was he current with IFR? Did he practice IFR in his glider?
>
> If it were allowed under the FARs, I think people would have proper instruments installed and training in motor gliders would be available in the USA.
>
> Installing instruments that you're not allowed to use without declaration of an emergency is a rather odd state of affairs.

IFR in gliders is not 'prohibited' in the USA. Rather than use the word "prohibited" it is more correct to say IFR in gliders is "impractical".

As with any aircraft, a glider must be equipped for the proposed flight and the pilot must have an instrument rating and be current (and competent) on instruments. With that in place, one can legally go into clouds as long as it is with an IFR flight plan.

For IFR in gliders, I've been told by the FAA that a pilot must have an airplane instrument rating plus 3 hours logged under a hood with a CFII in a glider and an endorsement from that CFII.

[Bob Pasker]

from a regulatory fashion, i fail to see how airplane/instrument applies to gliders. they are different categories of aircraft.

furthermore, even if airplane/instrument rating did apply to gliders, there are a host of regulatory issues: could only be in Class G (otherwise one would have to file and activate a flight plan and be in 2-way communications with ATC), and the aircraft would have to satisfy 91.205 and be certificated for IFR flight. these are only a few of the regulatory impediments that came immediately to mind.

On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 2:44:41 PM UTC-4, Bill D wrote:
> For IFR in gliders, I've been told by the FAA that a pilot must have an airplane instrument rating plus 3 hours logged under a hood with a CFII in a glider and an endorsement from that CFII.

[son_of_flubber]

On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 2:44:41 PM UTC-4, Bill D wrote:

> IFR in gliders is not 'prohibited' in the USA. Rather than use the word "prohibited" it is more correct to say IFR in gliders is "impractical".

Putting the FARs aside for a moment, is it otherwise practical to equip/train a glider/pilot to descend through a cloud deck in Class G in a Lee Wave related emergency? That's a much lower bar than unrestricted IFR Cloud Flying.

[Karl Kunz[_2_]]

FAR 91.205

(d) Instrument flight rules. For IFR flight, the following instruments and equipment are required:

(1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this section, and, for night flight, instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
(2) Two-way radio communication and navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown.

(3) Gyroscopic rate-of-turn indicator, except on the following aircraft:


(i) Airplanes with a third attitude instrument system usable through flight attitudes of 360 degrees of pitch and roll and installed in accordance with the instrument requirements prescribed in Sec. 121.305(j) of this chapter; and
(ii) Rotorcraft with a third attitude instrument system usable through flight attitudes of ±80 degrees of pitch and ±120 degrees of roll and installed in accordance with Sec. 29.1303(g) of this chapter.


(4) Slip-skid indicator.
(5) Sensitive altimeter adjustable for barometric pressure.

(6) A clock displaying hours, minutes, and seconds with a sweep-second pointer or digital presentation.

(7) Generator or alternator of adequate capacity.

(8) Gyroscopic pitch and bank indicator (artificial horizon).

(9) Gyroscopic direction indicator (directional gyro or equivalent).

[Kemp[_2_]]

I'm glad that my article has even one more reader, if for no other reason to highlight the need to avoid having to use tools to get out of such an absolutely frightening and dark place. I'm getting goosebumps just thinking about it...

My only add is that when it comes to actually being in the moment, the challenge is to maintain focus while your emotional side is talking, nay screaming louder and louder in your head. Mind you, I had absolutely no training and no instrument to help, so of course, it was a helluva cold start.

So as others have stated, practice with the instrument and do so in open, clear air to start. The emotional side will still yell at you, you'll just accommodate...

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

While I will (yet again) go back to my, "Loosen the belts, then, kiss your butt goodbye and hope for the best" statement, I will add....... know how to file a NASA report.

VFR into IMC (in the US for a non-IFR rated pilot) is a losing case.
Having some instruments and "lucking out" or, "bailing to save your butt" may work, I will hazard a guess and say, "Expect the FAA to want to talk with you...... at a minimum.......".

While it may have been done in the past (in the US) "legally", it's sorta hard to do (legally) in a sailplane today.

Best is to avoid the issue.
Yes, some instruments "may" save you/the sailplane
YES, you will talk to the FAA (especially is something gets broken..... very likely...).

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

wrote on 4/10/2015 9:02 PM:
> "Its also worth mentioning that Vne is not based on load factor, like
> Va, but on flutter, which is why its True and not Indicated."
>
> Actually flutter is dependent on equivalent airspeed not true
> airspeed. There was an interesting article in Soaring magazine way
> back where Stan Hall brought in a NASA aerodynamic expert
> specializing in aeroelasticity and had his work peer reviewed by
> other experts to try and get a definitive answer on a flutter
> question arising from a flutter accident that led to several months
> of "argument by letter to the editor."
>
> "In my glider, the placard VNE is 146 knots IAS but at 18,000 ft this
> is reduced to 122 knots IAS" Which brings up a question I've never
> been able to get a good answer to: what methodology do they use to
> determine reduced VNE with increasing altitude? Many gliders specify
> just IAS and the gliders I've dealt with which do specify lower VNE's
> with increasing altitude don't have those speeds match up with TAS at
> those altitudes. Calculate what TAS at 18,000 for an IAS of 122 knots
> actually is. It's higher than 146 knots.
>
> As for the original question: where I fly the clouds are filled with
> granite up to 7000 feet or more, the valleys are narrow and the
> valley floors are not much above sea level. I don't have a turn and
> slip or AH and I have only had minimal training on those instruments
> over a decade ago in a Piper Cherokee. Being caught in cloud where I
> fly I would probably opt for the parachute pretty damn quick. That
> however is just the best of a bunch of bad options really.

According to the aerodynamicists I've talked, flutter at higher
altitudes is mostly dependent on TAS. The quirk is "at higher altitudes".

The "many gliders" you mention are likely older gliders, as Vne in TAS
is a "recent" change, where recent is about 25-30 years ago.

My 20 year old Schleicher ASH 26 E has a Vne of 146 knots from sea level
to 10,000 feet; there, the Vne = 146 knots IAS/175 knots TAS. That's why
the Vne in IAS at 18,000 calculates to higher than 146 knots - the Vne
is 175 TAS, not 146 TAS.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"

https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2014A.pdf