Radio advice - newbie

[Roger Worden]

I'm a student pilot, and it's about time for me to get a radio. For general
soaring purposes, what's a decent handheld? I really know nothing about
them. Is the Sporty's SP-200 a good choice?

Thanks in advance.

[Vaughn]

"Roger Worden" > wrote in message
om...
> I'm a student pilot, and it's about time for me to get a radio. For
general
> soaring purposes, what's a decent handheld? I really know nothing about
> them. Is the Sporty's SP-200 a good choice?

I have never seen the SP-200 so can't comment. You will never go wrong
with a Vertex or Icom, they are the Toyota and Honda of that particular
market.

Vaughn


>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>

[DGRTEK]

Roger,
I did a ton of Research and went with the Icom A5 although not cheap it is a
great Handheld. I can't speak for the other models. The only caveat is that it
does Not give you a battery level. It flashes a battery sign about a few
minutes before it dies.

Douglas

[Ulrich Neumann]

"Vaughn" > wrote in message >...
> "Roger Worden" > wrote in message
> om...
> > I'm a student pilot, and it's about time for me to get a radio. For
> general
> > soaring purposes, what's a decent handheld? I really know nothing about
> > them. Is the Sporty's SP-200 a good choice?
>
> I have never seen the SP-200 so can't comment. You will never go wrong
> with a Vertex or Icom, they are the Toyota and Honda of that particular
> market.
>
> Vaughn
>
>
I would like to second Vaughn's comment. I have an Icom IC20 since
1988 and it works well. They rugged and reliable.

Ulrich Neumann
Libelle 'GM'



> >
> > Thanks in advance.
> >
> >

[JC Cunningham]

"Roger Worden" > wrote:

>I'm a student pilot, and it's about time for me to get a radio. For general
>soaring purposes, what's a decent handheld? I really know nothing about
>them. Is the Sporty's SP-200 a good choice?
>
>Thanks in advance.
>


Shortly after I got my license in 1992 I asked some ham radio
operators in my soaring club which brand of hand held radio to buy.
They all recommended the Icom brand and very reliable. I purchased an
Icom AC21 in 92. I run a commercial glider operation and was in need
of a second hand held and purchased an Icom AC-4, 4 years ago. Both
are still working flawlessly. If I lost one of them I would not
hesitate to purchase another Icom.

[Vaughn]

I forgot to add that I prefer to buy the smallest radio I can find and
then wear it around my neck on a light lanyard. I never have to fumble for
my radio and it is never adrift in the cockpit. (nothing more fun than a
radio or a drink bottle down around your rudder peddles)
For the record, I now use a Vertex Pro V, but I think that Icom makes a
comparable unit.

Vaughn

"Vaughn" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Roger Worden" > wrote in message
> om...
> > I'm a student pilot, and it's about time for me to get a radio. For
> general
> > soaring purposes, what's a decent handheld? I really know nothing about
> > them. Is the Sporty's SP-200 a good choice?
>
> I have never seen the SP-200 so can't comment. You will never go
wrong
> with a Vertex or Icom, they are the Toyota and Honda of that particular
> market.
>
> Vaughn
>
>
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
> >
> >
>
>

[BTIZ]

never wear anything around the neck lest you want to be choked by it...

get an ICOM.. then get the "speaker/mic" combination unit that plugs into
the top.. ICOM carried on belt or hip pocket.. or inside windbreaker jacket
pocket... speaker/mic clips to shirt collar or glider shoulder seat belt
straps (like a traffic cop)

JMHO
BT

"Vaughn" > wrote in message
...
> I forgot to add that I prefer to buy the smallest radio I can find
and
> then wear it around my neck on a light lanyard. I never have to fumble
for
> my radio and it is never adrift in the cockpit. (nothing more fun than a
> radio or a drink bottle down around your rudder peddles)
> For the record, I now use a Vertex Pro V, but I think that Icom makes
a
> comparable unit.
>
> Vaughn
>
> "Vaughn" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Roger Worden" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > I'm a student pilot, and it's about time for me to get a radio. For
> > general
> > > soaring purposes, what's a decent handheld? I really know nothing
about
> > > them. Is the Sporty's SP-200 a good choice?
> >
> > I have never seen the SP-200 so can't comment. You will never go
> wrong
> > with a Vertex or Icom, they are the Toyota and Honda of that particular
> > market.
> >
> > Vaughn
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Vaughn]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:rfezb.892$yf.327@fed1read01...
> never wear anything around the neck lest you want to be choked by it...
(sigh) Always someone on the Internet to tell you that what you are
doing is mortally dangerous. I did say "light" lanyard and you could just
as easily get wound up and horribly injured in the cord for that speaker
mike. (said with a grin)

That said, if you are wearing a chute, extra lanyards, cords, water
hoses etc. should be thought out very carefully.
>
> get an ICOM.. then get the "speaker/mic" combination unit that plugs into
> the top.. ICOM carried on belt or hip pocket.. or inside windbreaker
jacket
> pocket... speaker/mic clips to shirt collar or glider shoulder seat belt
> straps (like a traffic cop)

That is a perfectly valid way of doing it, I just don't like carrying
that extra hardware around. My entire radio is only about double the size
of some speaker mikes I have seen and there is one less thing to break.

Vaughn

[Joe Simmers]

Roger, I have a Like New Sportys handheld Com radio that i will make
you a really good deal on. It is a very nice and easy to use radio
that has only been used a couple of times.

Let me know if you are interested.

Joe Simmers
Ohio,usa

"Roger Worden" > wrote in message >...
> I'm a student pilot, and it's about time for me to get a radio. For general
> soaring purposes, what's a decent handheld? I really know nothing about
> them. Is the Sporty's SP-200 a good choice?
>
> Thanks in advance.

[Tony Verhulst]

> Shortly after I got my license in 1992 I asked some ham radio
> operators in my soaring club which brand of hand held radio to buy.
> They all recommended the Icom brand and very reliable. I purchased an
> Icom AC21 in 92. I run a commercial glider operation and was in need
> of a second hand held and purchased an Icom AC-4, 4 years ago. Both
> are still working flawlessly. If I lost one of them I would not
> hesitate to purchase another Icom.

I bought the original ICOM AC20 back in the late 80's. I instruct and it
gets a lot of use and abuse - it's been dropped, among other things.
Last year, I replaced the antenna connector (it broke off of the circuit
board) and a few years before that, the rechargable battery pack.

I'd like to replace it with the smaller AC22 or the smaller yet AC4 but
the damned thing just won't die.

Back when I bought the AC20, the only competing product was the King
KX-99. Like JC, I went with the ICOM because of its rock solid
reputation in the ham radio community.

You can't go wrong with ICOM.

Tony V.

[MichaelR]

I have used a Sporty's handheld for several years, and it's always worked
fine.
I like it because it is simple to use, and it just works.

"Roger Worden" > wrote in message
om...
> I'm a student pilot, and it's about time for me to get a radio. For
general
> soaring purposes, what's a decent handheld? I really know nothing about
> them. Is the Sporty's SP-200 a good choice?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>

[BTIZ]

> > never wear anything around the neck lest you want to be choked by it...
> (sigh) Always someone on the Internet to tell you that what you are
> doing is mortally dangerous. I did say "light" lanyard and you could just
> as easily get wound up and horribly injured in the cord for that speaker
> mike. (said with a grin)

I understand the "tongue in cheek" comments..

but at least with my speaker/mic combo.. the cord has to get around my
neck... with your set up.. it's already there.. LOL

regardless how "light" the cord.. you can get twisted on a string..

to each their own preferences..

BT

[Roger Worden]

Thanks to all the people who responded! ICOM seems to be the near-unanimous
favorite.

One other question: the models people mentioned seem to be COM only, no NAV.
Is there a need for NAV features in soaring? From what I've read so far, it
would seem that it's not used even in cross-country soaring, only in power
flight.

[Kirk Stant]

"Roger Worden" > wrote in message >...
> Thanks to all the people who responded! ICOM seems to be the near-unanimous
> favorite.
>
> One other question: the models people mentioned seem to be COM only, no NAV.
> Is there a need for NAV features in soaring? From what I've read so far, it
> would seem that it's not used even in cross-country soaring, only in power
> flight.

Especially since the introduction of GPS, the NAV function is
unnecessary, especially for gliding. Even if you do get it, trying to
use it while soaring would be difficult and dangerous at best! (think
looking at a sectional to find the nearest VOR, setting the freq,
finding the radial you are on, then trying to plot that on the
sectional - oh, and stay in that half knot thermal while you are doing
it. Lookout, what lookout?

Of course, you can also bury your head in the cockpit with a handheld
GPS, so it still takes discipline.

BTW, if you get an ICOM, and plan on using it a lot in a club
environment, I would suggest also getting the optional AA battery pack
(about $35, I think). That way when your NiCad runs out you have a
backup. I also use the handheld mike, clipped to my parachute harness
or shoulder strap - a lot easier to use than fumbling for the whole
radio, which then has to be re-stowed - not a good idea in the
pattern.

Good luck

Kirk
66

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Roger Worden > wrote:
>Thanks to all the people who responded! ICOM seems to be the near-unanimous
>favorite.
>
>One other question: the models people mentioned seem to be COM only, no NAV.
>Is there a need for NAV features in soaring? From what I've read so far, it
>would seem that it's not used even in cross-country soaring, only in power
>flight.
>

For the price of the added VOR/NAV function, I'd prefer a handheld
GPS (even a very simple one). But if you have the money for
both...

By the way, I use rechargeable AA's in all my portable electronics.
Several times I've had to "steal" batteries from GPS for the
radio or vice versa and it was nice to have compatible batteries.
I also put a little piece of plastic between the ICOM contact and
battery in the back, with a little tab of it sticking out. Then
when I'm ready to turn it on, I pull out the tab. This avoids
it accidentally turning on (volume switch) in my flight bag.

[Roger Worden]

>
> By the way, I use rechargeable AA's in all my portable electronics.
> Several times I've had to "steal" batteries from GPS for the
> radio or vice versa and it was nice to have compatible batteries.
> I also put a little piece of plastic between the ICOM contact and
> battery in the back, with a little tab of it sticking out. Then
> when I'm ready to turn it on, I pull out the tab. This avoids
> it accidentally turning on (volume switch) in my flight bag.
>

Yeah, the rechargable AA NiMH are great. I use them in my digital camera all
the time.

Thanks.

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Marcel Duenner > wrote:
>Is my impression correct that in the U.S. many if not most fly around
>with handheld radios only?
>If yes - why?
>
>In (continental) Europe virtually all sailplanes have built-in radios.

None of our 5 club gliders have radios. Part of it is to
keep the rent cheap, cheap, cheap. Another part is simplicity:
nothing to break, repair, steal, or recharge. Another part is that
we very seldom have simultaneous tows, and the 400 foot width
of our main runway makes unplanned simultaneous landings a cinch.
Finally, there is very, very little "radio required" airspace
within even 50 miles, and I don't know anyone who has
made it to 18,000 above our sea level airport (18,000 feet is
again where radios are required).

I suspect in Europe there is much less open land, and much less
uncontrolled airspace. And I suspect gliding is much
more popular because petrol is so expensive and in some
countries one must get a scheduled "slot" to fly a plane.
I imagine this is why winches are popular too.
On aerotow, there are signals that don't require radio,
and are easy to see from 200 feet.
On winch, I bet radios really help a lot.
Don't the flight levels start at 6000 in some places too?
Do you need radios for this?

Now on the US East coast, I couldn't say if radios are
commonly installed. I suspect it's more likely since
the controlled airspace on their sectionals seems to
appear with some regularity...

Perhaps someone could tell us what radio requirements
are over the pond, or in other parts of the world.
In the US, the bahamas, and mexico, it's very easy
to fly anywhere, except major (500,000 person+) city
airports, using only a handheld.

[Marcel Duenner]

Is my impression correct that in the U.S. many if not most fly around
with handheld radios only?
If yes - why?

In (continental) Europe virtually all sailplanes have built-in radios.

[Marcel Duenner]

(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:<3fd60658$1@darkstar>...
> In article >,
> Marcel Duenner > wrote:
> >Is my impression correct that in the U.S. many if not most fly around
> >with handheld radios only?
> >If yes - why?
> >
> >In (continental) Europe virtually all sailplanes have built-in radios.
>
> None of our 5 club gliders have radios. Part of it is to
> keep the rent cheap, cheap, cheap.

That's a point.

> Another part is simplicity:
> nothing to break, repair, steal, or recharge.

We rarely break, repair and never steal our radios either :-)
What we recharge is the battery which we need anyway for the el. vario
and glide computer.

> Another part is that
> we very seldom have simultaneous tows, and the 400 foot width
> of our main runway makes unplanned simultaneous landings a cinch.
> Finally, there is very, very little "radio required" airspace
> within even 50 miles, and I don't know anyone who has
> made it to 18,000 above our sea level airport (18,000 feet is
> again where radios are required).
>
> I suspect in Europe there is much less open land, and much less
> uncontrolled airspace.

The controlled airspace is not the reason I use radio. Last time I
talked to ATC was at least 300 flying hours ago. We have general and
also "private" chatting frequencies here and I wouldn't like to rely
on the poor transmission range of a handheld. Plus I have enough stuff
flying around (no, not literally) in the cockpit already (food, drink,
maps, jacket, sometimes GPS, sometimes oxygen, sometimes camera) and
can do without an additional handheld radio with all the potential
difficulties described by others in this thread.

> And I suspect gliding is much
> more popular because petrol is so expensive and in some
> countries one must get a scheduled "slot" to fly a plane.
> I imagine this is why winches are popular too.
> On aerotow, there are signals that don't require radio,
> and are easy to see from 200 feet.
> On winch, I bet radios really help a lot.

There are also very clear signals for winch launching without radio -
but because of radio long forgotten by most people... including winch
drivers.

> Don't the flight levels start at 6000 in some places too?
> Do you need radios for this?

Don't know about 6000. In Switzerland and Germany controlled airspace
generally starts at FL100. Swiss Alps FL130, some places and times
even FL150. From there on you need clearance and often enough won't
get it without a transponder. Of course there are also plenty of CTR,
TMA and AWY much lower down. Same thing there: very often no or only
very restrictive clearence without transponder. So I just don't go
there. So far most of these airspaces are fly-aroundable. But the
situation certainly is not getting better.


> Now on the US East coast, I couldn't say if radios are
> commonly installed. I suspect it's more likely since
> the controlled airspace on their sectionals seems to
> appear with some regularity...
>
> Perhaps someone could tell us what radio requirements
> are over the pond, or in other parts of the world.
> In the US, the bahamas, and mexico, it's very easy
> to fly anywhere, except major (500,000 person+) city
> airports, using only a handheld.

Regards
Marcel

[Stefan]

Mark James Boyd wrote:

> I suspect gliding is much
> more popular because petrol is so expensive and in some
> countries one must get a scheduled "slot" to fly a plane.

I am deeply shocked to read this statement on r.a.s.! Soaring is popular
here because it's a challenge and it's fun, while flying straight and
level with the help of a fuel to noise converter is just plain boring.

> Don't the flight levels start at 6000 in some places too?
> Do you need radios for this?

You're confusing flight levels with controlled airspace. Maybe it's the
same in USA, but not here.

> Perhaps someone could tell us what radio requirements

All our glider have radio. Not because it's required, but because it's
a) convenient
b) safe (on tow as well as on approach)
c) allows team flying
d) is required for cloud flying

That it allows to enter controlled airspace is a nice side effect.

Stefan

[Kirk Stant]

Soaring in the US is a bit different (more basic?) than in Europe. A
lot of gliding is done at commercial operations, which usually do not
bother to install radios (expense, battery maintenance, etc). Since
this kind of flying is "show up, fly for an hour, go home", there is
little sense of "ownership" in the gliders (which are often basic
gliders like 2-33s or 1-26s, or various Blaniks) so they are not taken
care of very well. There are exceptions, of course, usually where
higher performance gliders are available. As far as US clubs, they
also tend to be a lot more basic than European ones (sorry, I don't
have any experience with SA/Oz/NZ so won't comment on them), so while
radios are more common they are not universal. Private ships,
however, are almost all equipped with radios - required for contests,
anyway.

When I fly commercial rides at the local glider operation, I carry a
handheld, for all the obvious reasons mentioned by others, since only
two of the 10 gliders available for rent or rides has a working radio
- both single seaters. My own glider has a radio installed, as do all
those of my gliding friends.

Performance with a handheld is actually pretty good, especially from a
glass ship. In a metal trainer, it helps to have an outside antenna.
It always helps to hook up to a nice big battery. Then add a headset
and push to talk velcroed to the stick - more wires than an astronaut!
But better than no radio.

We don't cloud fly much here (I know of only one pilot who does - in
Florida), and controlled airspace is not really a problem - yet - so a
pilot can get by for a long time never having to talk on the radio;
and a lot do exactly that! I've even heard some express their opinion
that they don't have a radio because they think a radio is unsafe in a
glider - too distracting. As a result of lack of formal training in
their correct use, radios are not used very well - way too much
chatter and poor radio calls when needed (in the pattern, for
example). Of course, this is not only a glider problem - if anything
power pilots are worse!

Oddly, most US pilots do not feel the need for a radio when
aerotowing, but think it is necessary when winch launching - just the
opposite of my experience.

Cheers,

Kirk
66

[Mark James Boyd]

Stefan > wrote:
>Mark James Boyd wrote:
>
>> I suspect gliding is much
>> more popular because petrol is so expensive and in some
>> countries one must get a scheduled "slot" to fly a plane.
>
>I am deeply shocked to read this statement on r.a.s.! Soaring is popular
>here because it's a challenge and it's fun, while flying straight and
>level with the help of a fuel to noise converter is just plain boring.
>

Being cheaper and less hassle has nothing to do with it? ;) C'mon...

I think here in the US lack of "hassle factor" is a big motivation.
Here, we've seen the ultralight and hang gliding community
boom while the glider population is decreasing. Some people
(including me and Dennis Wright, our SSA chief) think this is
because ultralights and hang gliders have practically a "0"
hassle factor (no checkride, no signoffs, no minimum distance
flown from people, no tail numbers, no radio skill, etc.).

http://www.nickselby.com/articles/aviation/flyeurope.html
seems to indicate petrol and rentals and taxes and
landing fees and in some cases (Germany) scheduled slots
are required for power pilots. I would expect that some
potential power pilots are glider pilots in Germany because of less
expense and hassle. A winch launch and then a free landing in
an open field sounds better than lots of $$$$ and scheduling.

>> Don't the flight levels start at 6000 in some places too?
>> Do you need radios for this?
>
>You're confusing flight levels with controlled airspace. Maybe it's the
>same in USA, but not here.

You are correct that I was mixing terminology. I should have
simply asked "is there some altitude above which radios are
required overseas?" and said "in the US, radios are only legally
required above FL180 (about 18,000 feet), and also
near busy airports (which are
sparse in many parts of soaring country)."

I think the definition of "controlled airspace" is best avoided,
since in the US it doesn't directly concern radios ("E" airspace,
for example).

>
>> Perhaps someone could tell us what radio requirements
>
>All our glider have radio. Not because it's required, but because it's
>a) convenient
>b) safe (on tow as well as on approach)
>c) allows team flying
>d) is required for cloud flying
>
>That it allows to enter controlled airspace is a nice side effect.
>

AHA! One huge difference is that cloud flying is more
common in some places internationally. It is quite uncommon
here in the US.

Because of safety and convenience and team flying, as well as
crew coordination and retrieves, I'd agree with the previous
post that 95% of private and X-country capable gliders have
radios installed.

I think the main reason they aren't in many low-performance
training gliders in the US is to keep them cheap, cheap, cheap.
If it's not REQUIRED, it's an avoidable expense...

[Stefan]

Mark James Boyd wrote:

> Being cheaper and less hassle has nothing to do with it? ;) C'mon...
....
> I would expect that some
> potential power pilots are glider pilots in Germany because of less
> expense and hassle. A winch launch and then a free landing in
> an open field sounds better than lots of $$$$ and scheduling.

Actually, it's the other way round. Gliding is *much* more hassle than
flying noisemakers. Nevertheless, many pilots in our club have had a
power license, too. Most of them let it expire and fly gliders only,
despite the hassle. It's simply more fun.

You're correct in one point: Power flying is expensive in Europe, and
soaring is cheaper. But then, we don't want to occupy foreign countries
to secure a cheap oil supply, and Kyoto means something to us.

> You are correct that I was mixing terminology. I should have
> simply asked "is there some altitude above which radios are
> required overseas?"

Depends on the country. In my region, ist's 10'000 ft AMSL over flat
land and 15'000 ft AMSL or 2000 ft AGL (whichever is higher) over the
mountains. This is enough except if you want to enter wave, which
doesn't happen too often.

> I think the definition of "controlled airspace" is best avoided,
> since in the US it doesn't directly concern radios ("E" airspace,
> for example).

Got me!

Stefan

[Eric Greenwell]

Mark James Boyd wrote:

> I think here in the US lack of "hassle factor" is a big motivation.
> Here, we've seen the ultralight and hang gliding community
> boom while the glider population is decreasing. Some people
> (including me and Dennis Wright, our SSA chief) think this is
> because ultralights and hang gliders have practically a "0"
> hassle factor (no checkride, no signoffs, no minimum distance
> flown from people, no tail numbers, no radio skill, etc.).

It's an enduring myth among sailplane pilots that hang gliding has a low
hassle factor. I've talked to a number of former hang glider pilots who
are now sailplane pilots, and they say it is often the reverse. The
reasons will vary from place to place, but here are few from the last
one I talked to:

-get to hang glider site: no wind, no fly.
-ruin a car/truck every four years driving over logging roads to site
-every cross country flight is a retrieve
-glider depreciates quickly
-leave home early, get home after dinner, wife grumpy
-very tiring to fly

Now he's flying a Ka-6:
-leave home after lunch, home by dinner, wife ecstatic
-easy drive to airport on paved roads; car still good
-hugely better performance
-long cross-country flights end back at airport
-glider worth more now than when he bought it
-relaxing to fly

So, plenty of hassles, but different ones.

And, unfortunately, the hang gliding community, at least in the US, is
not growing either.
--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Roger Worden]

Would someone please define cloud flying? I've seen it mentioned in passing
but in four books on gliding so far I have not seen a definition or
description.

[Mark James Boyd]

Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
>It's an enduring myth among sailplane pilots that hang gliding has a low
>hassle factor. I've talked to a number of former hang glider pilots who
>are now sailplane pilots, and they say it is often the reverse. The
>reasons will vary from place to place, but here are few from the last
>one I talked to:
>
>-get to hang glider site: no wind, no fly.
>-ruin a car/truck every four years driving over logging roads to site
>-every cross country flight is a retrieve
>-glider depreciates quickly
>-leave home early, get home after dinner, wife grumpy
>-very tiring to fly
>

One of my three partners in a plane got started flying in a hang
glider when he was 15. He bought it for $50. He'd haul it
up a hill and fly down a few feet off the ground. One day
his buddies egged him into taking it up a big hill with
wind going up it. He took a few steps, and bingo, he was up
for about a minute, and landed next to his
house. He took it up a big hang gliding hill one time
and the locals said "where's your battens?" He said
"what are those?" so they laughed him off the hill...

The same guy recently got me up in his ultralight. Incredible
view, super low stall speed, VERY few restrictions in part
103. We flew right over the beach and waved at people.
The engine was started with a tug of a rope.
To be legal to carry passengers, one must become
an ultralight "basic flight instructor," which
involves no $90 written test and no $350 FAA flight test.
The "test" is given by someone who is already a BFI, and
has also been doing it more than 6 months and also has a
8-hour seminar.

As I get older, the flight reviews, medicals, six approaches,
3 landings at night in a multi-engine taildragger, etc. seem
more and more of a hassle. As I glance at the glider PTS and notice
dozens of references including thousands of pages of detail,
it occurs to me that being able to explain the "mixing ratio"
may be required by my examiner, but certainly falls into
the category that I would consider "obscure." In essence
it is intimidating, even though it will be my 11th FAA
checkride.

I researched heavily to find two aero clubs in California with
a very low "hassle factor" and minimum expense. But flying
gliders and even very simple power planes is still more daunting
in terms of sheer mass of requirements than that little
Quicksilver Sprint MXII. And I have made great efforts to
recruit friends to soaring, with little success mostly due
to the "intimidation factor" of the ferocious checkride.

I was truly heartened to see Dennis Wright's column where
he echoed these same concerns (December "Soaring"). This is
why I hope Sport Pilot goes through. I'd like to see
something that makes piloting more available to the
folks who want to have fun.

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Roger Worden > wrote:
>Would someone please define cloud flying? I've seen it mentioned in passing
>but in four books on gliding so far I have not seen a definition or
>description.
>
>

I think it just means flying through clouds or fog. In the
US this is mostly (although not exactly) the same as flying
in Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC).

[Stefan]

Roger Worden wrote:

> Would someone please define cloud flying?

Flying within a cloud. Allowed with gliders in some countries, forbidden
in others. If allowed, regulated differently in every country. More
popular in some countries than in others. Some pilots think it's fun,
some don't.

In the times of wood an fabric, the additional height was important to
enhance glide range. With today's material, this is very seldom an issue
anymore. Today it's mostly done just for the fun of it.

Stefan

[Chris Nicholas]

I understand that in most European countries, glider flying in cloud is
prohibited (though occasionally done by some lawbreakers, I have heard).
I have seen references to it occasionally in the USA so presumably it is
legal there. In the UK it is permitted, outside controlled airspace.
Most often this means climbing not just up to the base of a cumulus
cloud which has been formed by a thermal, but continuing on into the
cloud to get higher. It is sometimes possible to achieve cross country
flights by this means which are difficult or impossible if each thermal
has to be left at or lower than cloud base.
Having climbed above cloudbase, if one comes out of the side of the
cloud, another may be in the way en route, and one option is then to fly
through it rather than deviate round it.

Wave flying is another scenario - cloud may form around the glider or in
front (up wind) of it and so flight through it becomes unavoidable.

Cloud flying is potentially dangerous and should only be attempted after
suitable training, and with appropriate instruments. It is said that the
inexperienced can lose attitude and control in as little as 45 seconds.
Those who have not experienced the disorientation do not believe it can
happen that quickly, and a few have carried their disbelief into
practice with fatal results. Loss of control almost always means
entering a spiral dive, pulling high g and gaining speed. In modern
gliders, acceleration can be very rapid, the brakes or spoilers are
often not speed-limiting, and the wings come off. The last fatal gliding
accident of this sort in the UK was to one 10,000-hour (IIRC) pilot with
some experience of cloud flying a few years ago - the barograph trace
showed the glider broke up at about 10,000 feet at high speed, in a
modified Slingsby Vega with new tips.

Chris N.

[Kirk Stant]

(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:<3fd82ec7$1@darkstar>...
>
> The same guy recently got me up in his ultralight. Incredible
> view, super low stall speed, VERY few restrictions in part
> 103. We flew right over the beach and waved at people.
> The engine was started with a tug of a rope.
> To be legal to carry passengers, one must become
> an ultralight "basic flight instructor," which
> involves no $90 written test and no $350 FAA flight test.
> The "test" is given by someone who is already a BFI, and
> has also been doing it more than 6 months and also has a
> 8-hour seminar.
>
> As I get older, the flight reviews, medicals, six approaches,
> 3 landings at night in a multi-engine taildragger, etc. seem
> more and more of a hassle. As I glance at the glider PTS and notice
> dozens of references including thousands of pages of detail,
> it occurs to me that being able to explain the "mixing ratio"
> may be required by my examiner, but certainly falls into
> the category that I would consider "obscure." In essence
> it is intimidating, even though it will be my 11th FAA
> checkride.

Mark, your attitude scares me a bit. Sorry, but flying should be a
bit intimidating - it's just not safe otherwise. There is usually a
pretty damn good reason (read - people got killed) for most of the
requirements, if you look at them carefully enough.

The whole ultralight scene totally scares me. Not that the majority
of ultralight pilots don't fly relatively safely, but the attitude
that "I can just jump into it and fly around, just like an ATV with
wings" leads to some really scary flying - and some sad, stupid,
unnecessary deaths, like we just had out at our glider field a few
weeks ago.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of useless regulation - what I
believe is needed (in all flying activities) is a lot of good training
and knowledge about what can kill you. Thats what all the check rides
are about - and without them anyone is just playing russian roulette
with wings.

Hassle factor? Name one really worthwhile activity that doesn't
require lots of time, dedication, money, sweat, studying, etc. That's
what makes it worthwhile! Who do you think gets more out of a glider
flight, the guy who shows up at 9 am, rigs his ship, washes every bit
of it (even a 1-26!), takes the lowest tow possible, flies regardless
of the conditions (as long as it's safe) as long as he can, then puts
his ship away and hangs around BS-ing with the locals watching the sun
set - or the guy who only comes out to the field on a perfect day,
reserves a plane from a commercial operator, takes a high tow, flies
exactly 1.0 locally, lands, pays his bill, then leaves? When flight
currency requirements start becoming hard to maintain, it's a good
sign to stop pretending to be current in that activity and stick to
something simpler. Think about it - a lot of times the instructor
giving the checkride has less time and experience than the pilot
getting the check - so teach him a thing or two!

Bah Humbug (It's that season again - havn't flown in a couple of
weeks)

Kirk
66

[Bert Willing]

Cloud flying with gliders is legal in Switzerland, UK and Germany (although
restricted). It's not legal in France.

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Chris Nicholas" > a écrit dans le
message de ...
> I understand that in most European countries, glider flying in cloud is
> prohibited (though occasionally done by some lawbreakers, I have heard).

[Janusz Kesik]

In Poland it also can be done legally, as well as night flying.

Regards,


--
Janusz Kesik

visit www.leszno.pl - home of the www.css-leszno.it.pl

[Mark James Boyd]

Kirk Stant > wrote:
>
>Mark, your attitude scares me a bit. Sorry, but flying should be a
>bit intimidating -

Nowhere in my post did I say hang gliding or ultralight
flying, especially given the current rules, was safe. I simply
don't have enough time doing either to evaluate that. My
comments only referred to barriers to entry to the sport,
i.e. "hassle factor." If you think there was any claim
in that post that evaluated the safety or fatality rate in
either sport, please reread the post.

>The whole ultralight scene totally scares me. Not that the majority
>of ultralight pilots don't fly relatively safely, but the attitude
>that "I can just jump into it and fly around, just like an ATV with
>wings" leads to some really scary flying - and some sad, stupid,
>unnecessary deaths, like we just had out at our glider field a few
>weeks ago.

Can you tell me of any aviation accident with a pilot of
any training level that wasn't "sad, stupid, and unecessary" ?

As far as your particular affinity for ultralights goes, I hear
ya. I must say I spent sevral days and a lot of kicking dust
before flying it. I approached it just like any new aircraft:
read the manual, read the common accidents, inspect the craft
(castle nuts without cotter keys, is this wire supposed to be unloaded?,
what about negative G's? Stall speed? Crosswinds? Turbulence?
C.G.? This CG business was a real biggie).
Then find an A&P and BFI with umpteen accident free hours (any
idiot can have hours, how many are accident free?).
There were several other things that made me SUPER scared (no
shoulder harnesses or parachutes), and
some mistakes (open cockpit means hats get blown about and double
goggles are a good idea, good thing I wasn't the pilot). There
was also one amazing confidence builder (ballistic parachute).
If you haven't read about saves made by these things, I highly
recommend it. I don't think I'll become an avid ultralight
pilot, but it was an AMAZING eye opener and I'd highly recommend
one flight with someone you've evaluated to your level of
comfort. A wing that stalls at 18 mph is an amazing thing.

>
>Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of useless regulation - what I
>believe is needed (in all flying activities) is a lot of good training
>and knowledge about what can kill you. Thats what all the check rides
>are about - and without them anyone is just playing russian roulette
>with wings.
>

I'm convinced the most interesting training absolutely does not
improve safety, but only maintains the same level of safety
while improving capability. Student pilots solo because they
are safe, then train to fly further, higher, and with passengers,
and in more interesting wind and weather (increasing capability).

I believe the FAA should divide a LOT of PTS stuff out as
endorsements. I believe all of these things should be
endorsements, and NOT part of the PTS for any
Sport Pilot license:

1. Radio use
2. Night flying
3. Instrument training
4. Airspace flying (D, C, B, A)
5. Cross-country flying
6. Flight at altitude over 12,500
7. Assembly/disassembly of aircraft (I mean beyond preflight)

I think the FAA has, over time, divided out a lot of stuff
as endorsements, and I think this is great. Launches,
high-perf, complex, tailwheel, pressurization, IPC,
solo in new cat/class, etc. I'm really excited about this
trend. When I talk about "hassle factor" I'm really
saying that it's a shame that a newbie pilot can't take
a passenger up in a 2-33 without a checkride covering 1-7.

>Hassle factor? Name one really worthwhile activity that doesn't
>require lots of time, dedication, money, sweat, studying, etc.

Sex. Think about it...

>That's what makes it worthwhile! Who do you think gets more outa glider
>flight, the guy who shows up at 9 am, rigs his ship, washes every bit
>of it (even a 1-26!), takes the lowest tow possible, flies regardless
>of the conditions (as long as it's safe) as long as he can, then puts
>his ship away and hangs around BS-ing with the locals watching the sun
>set - or the guy who only comes out to the field on a perfect day,
>reserves a plane from a commercial operator, takes a high tow, flies
>exactly 1.0 locally, lands, pays his bill, then leaves?

I think the pilot should chose how much he wants to get out of
flying, and if his flying simply doesn't involve 1-7, requiring
it is a burden. I know one pilot who has a Waco and a Citabria.
He was burdened by the 1-7, and the high-performance endorsement
was off the mark (he needed it to fly a 210 hp with fixed prop).

This guy flies day VFR in G and E airspace locally, and never
sees 5000 feet. He just loves going up at every chance
and making donuts in the sky.

Who gets more out of gliding is not mine to determine. If
someone likes a 1-26 because it can be left in the rain and
not disassembled (and doesn't even know how) then jolly for him.
If someone else wants to put lights on his glider,
fly in clouds at 22,000 feet, and go 500km+, hey, that's
cool too...

>When flight
>currency requirements start becoming hard to maintain, it's a good
>sign to stop pretending to be current in that activity and stick to
>something simpler.

I couldn't agree more. I've largely given up trying to
maintain my multi-engine currency, and my IFR is rusty enough
that my personal minimums are way up (I won't do an ILS to mins).
Trying to keep all those currencies has just been too
much of a hassle...

>Think about it - a lot of times the instructor
>giving the checkride has less time and experience than the pilot
>getting the check - so teach him a thing or two!
>

Good idea, I hope so.

>Bah Humbug (It's that season again - havn't flown in a couple of
>weeks)

Merry Chrismas! I think for Christmas I might be getting
a tiny baby girl. What's in your stocking? :-P

>
>Kirk
>66

Mark
35 (but I always tell the ladies I'm 21)


"rec.aviation.soaring - BS free since Dec 11, 2003 at 10:55 PST"

[Roger Kelly]

(Mark James Boyd) wrote in news:3fd8bce1$1@darkstar:

> Kirk Stant > wrote:
>>
>> clip
>
>>The whole ultralight scene totally scares me. Not that the majority
>>of ultralight pilots don't fly relatively safely, but the attitude
>>that "I can just jump into it and fly around, just like an ATV with
>>wings" leads to some really scary flying - ... more clip
>
> C.G.? This CG business was a real biggie).

I only tried the ultralight thing twice... 1st time I climbed in with the
apparently competent instructor and was flying around having a blast until
he cut the power back to idle and I had to push the stick all the way
forward and add power to avoid a stall. I hate to think what would have
happened if we had lost power. 2nd time I went to another operation. The
resident instructor was walking around with a bad limp. I didn't ask, but
he volunteered that he had crashed a cherokee a few months before... and he
had no license, no insurance, was taking off with about a 500 ft ceiling,
carb iced up. He also told me he didn't report it to the FAA. I didn't
fly there - found the glider operation instead and got my glider rating.


--
Roger Kelly
to reply replace the IP address above with cgisenior.com

[Kirk Stant]

Hi Mark,

I realized after hitting the "Post Message" button that my previous
post came across as a bit (understatement!) arrogant and
condescending. Sorry, it wasn't meant to be, I was reacting to the
ultralight accident I mentioned, which has really colored my opinion
about the whole "Flying is too complicated and hard, let's make it
easier" trend.

From your response it's obvious we actually think alike in many ways
when it comes to flying - except for the Sports Pilot thing. If 14
year olds can solo gliders and be licenced by 16, having mastered all
the technicalities and "hassles", then it really isn't that hard - it
just takes determination and time (and money, of course - preferably
someone else's!). Making it "easier" by crippling the performance of
the planes and limiting the pilots freedom sounds like a bad and
dangerous deal to me - and everything I have seen in the ultralight
world confirms this - there is so much blatant disrespect for the
limits going on, only the fact that when they kill themselves it is
usually out in the middle of nowhere keeps the Feds from jumping in.

The sad thing is that I love to fly real (meaning certificated) planes
in the same performance range as the ultralights (J-3s and Champs
comes to mind); and I have, but no-one makes any new ones because they
can't compete with ultralights, so we are stuck with 50-year old
designs or expensive antiques or homebuilts - and there goes the
availability and affordability!

I guess I just don't subscribe to the belief that "flying is for
everybody" - heck, there are a lot of people out there who shouldn't
even be driving a car!

Of course, I guess that whatever happens, Darwin and gravity will sort
it all out in the long run. It usually does. I just don't want to be
in the same piece of sky when it happens.

Cheers

Kirk
66
Snobby Elitist Glasshole
and PEZ addict

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Kirk Stant > wrote:
>Hi Mark,
>
>From your response it's obvious we actually think alike in many ways
>when it comes to flying - except for the Sports Pilot thing. If 14
>year olds can solo gliders and be licenced by 16, having mastered all
>the technicalities and "hassles", then it really isn't that hard - it
>just takes determination and time (and money, of course - preferably
>someone else's!). Making it "easier" by crippling the performance of
>the planes and limiting the pilots freedom sounds like a bad and
>dangerous deal to me - and everything I have seen in the ultralight
>world confirms this - there is so much blatant disrespect for the
>limits going on, only the fact that when they kill themselves it is
>usually out in the middle of nowhere keeps the Feds from jumping in.
>

The initial license Sport Pilot - glider is so similar to
the initial Private-glider that it is useless.
I'm really only focussing on transition pilots with respect
to Sport Pilot.

The only part of Sport Pilot that has any use for gliders is the
transition for folks who already have a pilot's license.
So we're talking about folks who already have an FAA license
and have had a checkride, just in a different cat/class.

As far as limiting performance, the 2-33's 25 years with no
fatalities speaks volumes. And recreational pilot already does
exactly the "limiting performance" route. There is significant
precedent...

As far as limiting pilot's freedom on paper, we already do this
very extensively with solo limits, launch endorsements, VFR rules,
etc. Some people follow them, some don't. Darwin watches them
every single minute...

>The sad thing is that I love to fly real (meaning certificated) planes
>in the same performance range as the ultralights (J-3s and Champs
>comes to mind); and I have, but no-one makes any new ones because they
>can't compete with ultralights, so we are stuck with 50-year old
>designs or expensive antiques or homebuilts - and there goes the
>availability and affordability!
>

I saw a Corben Baby Ace for sale just the other day, $8000...
Van's is the #1 buyer/distributer of airplane engines in the US.
Homebuilt has become the way to go. Come to the
Dark Side, Kirk! <rebreather activates>

I've heard that few new aircraft are built for two reasons:
1. Liability insurance has increased for the companies
2. The Investment Tax Credit, which allowed
huge depreciation tax credits for "leasebacks", went
away decades ago.

#1 was partially limited a few years ago.

I heard #2 may be changing back soon. Anybody wanna
make $80,000 by putting a DG-1000 on leaseback? ;-P
Yeah, I know, only as an LLC...

>I guess I just don't subscribe to the belief that "flying is for
>everybody" - heck, there are a lot of people out there who shouldn't
>even be driving a car!

I believe exactly the same thing. But I also believe that
far more fatalities are caused by overconfidence, lack of
self-discipline, lack of honest self-evaluation, and desire to
"push the limit" than by lack of regulation. I also don't
think checkrides evaluate hazardous attitudes at all.

RANDOM COMMENT: I actually hate the fact the FAA requires
3 hours of instrument training for power instead of three
hours of cloud separation estimation and visibility estimation.
I'll take good judgement and risk avoidance over mediocre
skill any day.

Over the years, I've picked eight people who, under my breath,
I thought would have accident problems. I stopped flying with
them or training them. In each case I had one-on-one critiques
with them. All eight finished lots of checkrides, in fact
faster and with more determination than others. These are
bright, confident people.

None have died, but six have severely damaged aircraft.
One injured a passenger.

I've also passed along dozens of others, and none of them have
ever injured anyone or severely damaged an aircraft. This
is despite quick training time and very low hours.

I think this had little to do with training, skill, or regulation.
All of these pilots would do almost as well or as poorly
with any instructor or examiner. Some pilots just have
excellent self-assessment. Others, when they get to
be in charge in an airplane, grow HORNS!

I don't think more FAA checkrides is the answer. I don't
think one or two questions as part of a test is the answer.
I think endorsements and a one-on-one train/test
scenario is the answer. I think encouraging
a continued reliance on the lowest, most intimate level of
evaluation and training (the CFI) is better. Heck,
if you wanna be stingy, make the endorsements required
by inspectors/DPE's, just
not as one big ball of wax on a checkride.

Get 'em in the door with the hamburger. They'll hear about
the soyburger, cheese, bacon, hot sauce and
spicy fries. They may even smell them. They may even
taste some from a friend's plate. But I believe THEY
should decide if the item is too expensive or too spicy
or too fattening.

And these customers, with good judgement, are the ones I want.
I want them focussing on each new accomplishment, and want them
to see their flight training as a hamburger with lots
of carefully chosen extras. I don't want them forced with
the choice of:

1. expensive, all of it, and messy,
2. nothing at all.

If you haven't, I'd really encourage reading Dennis Wright's
comments in Soaring Dec 2003 (might be Nov?). This is from
a smart guy who just had a super-burger...

>
>Of course, I guess that whatever happens, Darwin and gravity will sort
>it all out in the long run. It usually does.

Darwin is HUGE. Did you notice that there is NO hour requirement
for solo? Did you notice the FAA is adamant about solo time?

>I just don't want to be
>in the same piece of sky when it happens.
>

Be careful about wanting fewer gliders in the sky. Fewer
gliders means fewer towplanes, fewer aero clubs, fewer
competitions (and fewer posters to this newsgroup).
Do you really want that? :P

>Cheers
>
>Kirk
>66
>Snobby Elitist Glasshole
>and PEZ addict


Mark
35 going on 21
Armchair Quarterback and Troll
Ramen addict (chinese version of PEZ)

"rec.aviation.soaring - BS free since Dec 12, 2003 1:45 PM PST"

[Arnold Pieper]

Cloud flying is not legal in the US or Brazil, unless you're in an IFR
flight plan.

[Ivan Kahn]

"Arnold Pieper" > wrote in message
om...
> Cloud flying is not legal in the US or Brazil, unless you're in an IFR
> flight plan.
>
>

Not totally correct. In the US you CAN fly IFR without being on an IFR
flight plan and without a clearance, so long as you do it in Class G
airspace.Both aircraft and pilot must meet IFR requirements, however.

Ivan
CFII

[Andy Durbin]

"Arnold Pieper" > wrote in message >...
> Cloud flying is not legal in the US or Brazil, unless you're in an IFR
> flight plan.

As with most rules it's the exceptions that are worth knowing. In USA
no intrument flight plan is required for flight in instrument
conditions when not in controlled airspace. There is a class G area
near Bagdad, Arizona, that I have been thinking of using for years.
The only thing that stops me is that I would have to remove the gyro
for contest flying and it would leave a nasty hole in the panel. (yes,
I am instument rated in airplanes and current).


Andy (GY)

[Janusz Kesik]

>There is a class G area
> near Bagdad, Arizona.

:)) LOL!

Is there really a place named Baghdad in Arizona, or You're just joking?

Janusz

[Mark James Boyd]

>Not totally correct. In the US you CAN fly IFR without being on an IFR
>flight plan and without a clearance, so long as you do it in Class G
>airspace.Both aircraft and pilot must meet IFR requirements, however.
>
>Ivan
>CFII

What aircraft IFR requirements are there for gliders?

91.205(a) does not seem to apply (only covers powered
civil aircraft with a standard category U.S.
airworthiness certificate).

91.215 seems to exempt gliders from almost all transponder
requirements even in controlled airspace.

91.205(e) seems to still apply to FL 240+ since it
just says "civil aircraft."

Don't get me wrong: Flying south in a 2-22 in solid IFR at
FL230 using only handheld for ATC and a mag compass
as an attitude indicator, might not
be a great idea.

But as long as the pilot meets 61.57(c)(2) or 61.57(d)
(more likely) it seems generally the aircraft
instrumentation requirements are legally
non-existent for glider IFR below FL240.
And the radio requirements for controlled
airspace 91.183 could be satisfied with a
handheld.

But they may be part of experimental limitations 91.319(d)(2),
or part of the IFR required equipment in the flight manual,
or flight manual limitations against IFR, I suppose...

And if one decides they want to use a transponder in a glider
IFR, it doesn't even seem to need 91.411 (about $100) since it
isn't an airplane or helicopter.
91.413 (about $50) would still apply, I believe.

[Ivan Kahn]

"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:3fdbd02d$1@darkstar...
> >Not totally correct. In the US you CAN fly IFR without being on an IFR
> >flight plan and without a clearance, so long as you do it in Class G
> >airspace.Both aircraft and pilot must meet IFR requirements, however.
> >
> >Ivan
> >CFII
>
> What aircraft IFR requirements are there for gliders?
>
<snip>

You are correct that most FARs speak to airplanes, but even for airplanes
the FARs are not governing for any particular aircraft. Typically, the
flight manual will say if the aircraft can be flown under IFR and if so,
what instruments are required. For example, in the G-102 manual it says that
only VFR flight is permitted while the LS-3 states that "cloud flying" is
permitted.

Ivan

[tango4]

Its not a joke Janusz

"Janusz Kesik" > wrote in message
...
> >There is a class G area
> > near Bagdad, Arizona.
>
> :)) LOL!
>
> Is there really a place named Baghdad in Arizona, or You're just joking?
>
> Janusz
>
>

[Andy Durbin]

"Janusz Kesik" > wrote in message >...
> >There is a class G area
> > near Bagdad, Arizona.
>
> :)) LOL!
>
> Is there really a place named Baghdad in Arizona, or You're just joking?
>
> Janusz


Hi Januz,

No joke. Bagdad, not Baghdad, is a small mining town about 80 miles
North West of Phoenix. We use the airport as a contest turnpoint.


Andy

[Robert Danewid]

And in Sweden it is legal to, provided you have a special rating for
cloud flying with gliders.

Robert

Janusz Kesik wrote:
> In Poland it also can be done legally, as well as night flying.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> --
> Janusz Kesik
>
> visit www.leszno.pl - home of the www.css-leszno.it.pl
>
>

[Janusz Kesik]

In Polish, Baghdad is written "Bagdad" so it looked funny... :)

JK