Update on Minden tradegy

[David Bingham]

The remains of the Carat Motorglider have been placed
in its trailer and are awaiting the investigation by the NTSB
at Minden Airport.
I spoke to Larry Mansberger about the possibility of a wing
failure similar to those experienced by the Duo Discus and
the Discus CS a year or so ago. For those of you unfamiliar
to the Schempp-Hirth problems I will give you a little history.
The wings were manufactured in Eastern Europe and because
of quality assurance problems it was discovered that, after
a couple of wings disintegrated in the air, the glue used was
too thin and the parts that were expected to be glued together
had large voids where there should have been joined. This
weakened the wings causing in the air failures. Larry showed
me, using a boroscope, such defects in a Duo Discus wing
he was inspecting after the LBA and the FAA grounded
certain models of the Discus single and dual place gliders.
The Carat uses a modified std Discus wing. No problems
have ever been reported in the Carat wing. Larry helped
transport Alan's Carat back to the airport after the accident
and carefully checked to see if there were any similar
problems to those seen in the Duo's wings. There were non.
Mike More flew a Grob 103 with a student at the same time
Alan was in the air. They were also north of the airport. They
were flying above 14,000 feet, spoke of moderate turbulence,
but more importantly of the closure of layers of cloud below
them. Mike said to me that he had to be vigilant of the forming
and dissolving cloud layers and position himself so that there
was always a blue hole to get himself down in. A less
experienced pilot might not have been so aware of the dangers
of getting trapped in cloud.
Lets get the most out of this tragic accident. Lets learn and
in so doing become wiser. The wave can be a monster in more
than one sense. It can cause extreme rotor - read turbulence -
it can produce extreme lift greater than 1500 ft per minute; how
do you get down? You had better have a plan! Cloud layers can
form almost instantly - a big blue hole might disappear in
seconds. Most of the time wave is enjoyable and reasonably
safe, but it can so quickly turn into a monster. When it does
look out. Have a plan.
Copied below is an initial accident review from the US Carat
distributor.
Dave Bingham
---------------------

Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 04:23:53 -0000

Dear Saddened Carat Fans;

After a through investigation of the accident by AMS Flight d.o.o.,
Schempp-Hirth GmbH, Mansberger Aviation and AMS-USA it has been
determined that inflight structural failure was not the cause of this
accident.

On this flight, N418AP, went through an in flight envelope of
aproximately, a 15-20 positive G load, and an airspeed of 200+ knots.

The likely cause of the accident was a combination of high altitude
hypoxia and flying in IMC conditions, which lead to loss of control
of the aircraft and it exceeding its design limitations.

Oliver Dyer-Bennet
AMS-USA

[Brian Iten]

Were the G numbers and speed found on a flight recorder?
Brian

[nafod40]

Todd Pattist wrote:
>
> I had my doubts about using this technique in a slippery
> glass ship, but I found it to work fairly well, except I use
> trim back. I have tried this in my Ventus C, once for a
> total of 10,000' descent, once for 8,000' descent and once
> for 5,000' (a real waste of altitude, but each was after a
> wave flight and I was cold). I found that trim back
> (thermal setting), flaps at -1 (one notch negative - zero
> and positive flap settings are limited to 80 knots), wheel
> out and brakes full open worked best. The 10,000' and
> 5,000' descents were entered level, became a gentle stable
> turn and remained fairly stable with some phugoid speed
> oscillation. The turn would sometimes steepen, sometimes
> shallow or even reverse.

When flying in the military, we used to play games and see what we could
fail and still fly the plane IMC. I found I could get by with a turn
needle, an AOA gauge, a balance ball (or a balance string) and an ASI.
The turn needle coupled with the balance string could be used to
maintain wings level. Basically use rudder to keep the turn needle
centered, and wing to balance flight.

The AOA with the airspeed, oddly enough, worked fine for pitch once you
got used to it. The AOA responded instantly to pitch inputs, and let you
immediately correct them. From a controls standpoint, it gave great
derivative information. The airspeed then let you dampen the slow pitch
deviations. It was a great integrator. One could replicate an AOA
indicator by a string on the side of a cockpit.

I could fly a PAR to mins using this technique. Tiring, but doable.

So the turn needle is the only thing seriously lacking in a glider.

[Bill Daniels]

"nafod40" > wrote in message
...
> Todd Pattist wrote:
> >
> > I had my doubts about using this technique in a slippery
> > glass ship, but I found it to work fairly well, except I use
> > trim back. I have tried this in my Ventus C, once for a
> > total of 10,000' descent, once for 8,000' descent and once
> > for 5,000' (a real waste of altitude, but each was after a
> > wave flight and I was cold). I found that trim back
> > (thermal setting), flaps at -1 (one notch negative - zero
> > and positive flap settings are limited to 80 knots), wheel
> > out and brakes full open worked best. The 10,000' and
> > 5,000' descents were entered level, became a gentle stable
> > turn and remained fairly stable with some phugoid speed
> > oscillation. The turn would sometimes steepen, sometimes
> > shallow or even reverse.
>
> When flying in the military, we used to play games and see what we could
> fail and still fly the plane IMC. I found I could get by with a turn
> needle, an AOA gauge, a balance ball (or a balance string) and an ASI.
> The turn needle coupled with the balance string could be used to
> maintain wings level. Basically use rudder to keep the turn needle
> centered, and wing to balance flight.
>
> The AOA with the airspeed, oddly enough, worked fine for pitch once you
> got used to it. The AOA responded instantly to pitch inputs, and let you
> immediately correct them. From a controls standpoint, it gave great
> derivative information. The airspeed then let you dampen the slow pitch
> deviations. It was a great integrator. One could replicate an AOA
> indicator by a string on the side of a cockpit.
>
> I could fly a PAR to mins using this technique. Tiring, but doable.
>
> So the turn needle is the only thing seriously lacking in a glider.
>

You can fly with just the turn needle and ASI if you learn to control
airspeed trends.

For those of us flying with a PDA with GPS and TAS input, there are several
inexpensive software programs that derive bank from TAS and rate of change
in ground track and display it as an attitude indicator. It's not perfect
but it should get you out of a cloud.

Bill Daniels

[nafod40]

Bill Daniels wrote:
>
>
> You can fly with just the turn needle and ASI if you learn to control
> airspeed trends.

I'm being flip here a little bit, but I wonder if you couldn't
manufacture an "emergency gyro" that would be spun up like a top by
battery, and would spin for enough minutes to hold an attitude. Clamp it
onto the dash and start descending.

[Stefan]

nafod40 wrote:

> When flying in the military, we used to play games and see what we could
> fail and still fly the plane IMC. I found I could get by with a turn
> needle, an AOA gauge, a balance ball (or a balance string) and an ASI.

Not very surprizing. Actually, the legal minimal instrumentation for
cloud flying in Switzerland is AI, Vario, Ball, Compass and Needle (and
radio). The glider instrument rating involves flying with those.

> So the turn needle is the only thing seriously lacking in a glider.

Why should it be lacking in a glider? It doesn't in ours.

Stefan

[Bill Daniels]

"nafod40" > wrote in message
...
> Bill Daniels wrote:
> >
> >
> > You can fly with just the turn needle and ASI if you learn to control
> > airspeed trends.
>
> I'm being flip here a little bit, but I wonder if you couldn't
> manufacture an "emergency gyro" that would be spun up like a top by
> battery, and would spin for enough minutes to hold an attitude. Clamp it
> onto the dash and start descending.
>

Spinning gyros are passe.
Look at: http://www.pcflightsystems.com/egyro.html
or: http://www.icarusinstruments.com/microEFIS.html

Bill Daniels

[David Bingham]

Unfortunately Alan did not have a flight recorder.
Dave

Brian Iten > wrote in message >...
> Were the G numbers and speed found on a flight recorder?
> Brian

[Papa3]

Interesting. Two weeks ago, several of us contacted wave and managed a
beautiful climb up through a fairly small blue hole. Though there was never
any question about being able to get back through, it made me think about
the alternative routes to getting down if I were caught on top. I've tried
the benign spiral in several ships, ranging from a 1-34 to Grob 102 and an
LS4, and it seemed to work in all cases similar to Todd's description.

But, on this recent flight, I tried something different. I turned the
"gain" on my GPS display up to high (ie. shortest range) and used the Tracks
On feature to give me a reference to ground. I set an initial heading
using GPS display (not wet compass) and used the individual dots on the
Track as a sort of reverse CDI. I was curious to see if the response would
be sensitive and rapid enough to avoid major roll excursions. It SEEMED to
work. I was able to hold heading without reference to ground and used only
airspeed for pitch. I tried not to cheat, but since I don't routinely
bring my foggles along on glider flights and didn't have a safety pilot, I
didn't want to go too far heads down :-)) Now, I'm not advocating this,
but does anyone else see this as an option?

Erik Mann



"nafod40" > wrote in message
...
> Todd Pattist wrote:
> >
> > I had my doubts about using this technique in a slippery
> > glass ship, but I found it to work fairly well, except I use
> > trim back. I have tried this in my Ventus C, once for a
> > total of 10,000' descent, once for 8,000' descent and once
> > for 5,000' (a real waste of altitude, but each was after a
> > wave flight and I was cold). I found that trim back
> > (thermal setting), flaps at -1 (one notch negative - zero
> > and positive flap settings are limited to 80 knots), wheel
> > out and brakes full open worked best. The 10,000' and
> > 5,000' descents were entered level, became a gentle stable
> > turn and remained fairly stable with some phugoid speed
> > oscillation. The turn would sometimes steepen, sometimes
> > shallow or even reverse.
>
> When flying in the military, we used to play games and see what we could
> fail and still fly the plane IMC. I found I could get by with a turn
> needle, an AOA gauge, a balance ball (or a balance string) and an ASI.
> The turn needle coupled with the balance string could be used to
> maintain wings level. Basically use rudder to keep the turn needle
> centered, and wing to balance flight.
>
> The AOA with the airspeed, oddly enough, worked fine for pitch once you
> got used to it. The AOA responded instantly to pitch inputs, and let you
> immediately correct them. From a controls standpoint, it gave great
> derivative information. The airspeed then let you dampen the slow pitch
> deviations. It was a great integrator. One could replicate an AOA
> indicator by a string on the side of a cockpit.
>
> I could fly a PAR to mins using this technique. Tiring, but doable.
>
> So the turn needle is the only thing seriously lacking in a glider.
>

[Eric Greenwell]

Papa3 wrote:

>
> But, on this recent flight, I tried something different. I turned the
> "gain" on my GPS display up to high (ie. shortest range) and used the Tracks
> On feature to give me a reference to ground. I set an initial heading
> using GPS display (not wet compass) and used the individual dots on the
> Track as a sort of reverse CDI. I was curious to see if the response would
> be sensitive and rapid enough to avoid major roll excursions. It SEEMED to
> work. I was able to hold heading without reference to ground and used only
> airspeed for pitch. I tried not to cheat, but since I don't routinely
> bring my foggles along on glider flights and didn't have a safety pilot, I
> didn't want to go too far heads down :-)) Now, I'm not advocating this,
> but does anyone else see this as an option?

I've tried it under similar conditions, and it seems to work in smooth
air without much wind. In wave with 30+ knot wind, the heading was very
touchy going into the wind, and very insensitive going with the wind.

Throw in some turbulence, and? No idea. Not that I'm any good with
needle, ball, and airspeed in turbulence anyway.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Andrew Warbrick]

At 20:06 29 October 2004, Nafod40 wrote:
>Todd Pattist wrote:
>>
>> I had my doubts about using this technique in a slippery
>> glass ship, but I found it to work fairly well, except
>>I use
>> trim back. I have tried this in my Ventus C, once
>>for a
>> total of 10,000' descent, once for 8,000' descent
>>and once
>> for 5,000' (a real waste of altitude, but each was
>>after a
>> wave flight and I was cold). I found that trim back
>> (thermal setting), flaps at -1 (one notch negative
>>- zero
>> and positive flap settings are limited to 80 knots),
>>wheel
>> out and brakes full open worked best. The 10,000'
>>and
>> 5,000' descents were entered level, became a gentle
>>stable
>> turn and remained fairly stable with some phugoid
>>speed
>> oscillation. The turn would sometimes steepen, sometimes
>> shallow or even reverse.
>
>When flying in the military, we used to play games
>and see what we could
>fail and still fly the plane IMC. I found I could get
>by with a turn
>needle, an AOA gauge, a balance ball (or a balance
>string) and an ASI.
>The turn needle coupled with the balance string could
>be used to
>maintain wings level. Basically use rudder to keep
>the turn needle
>centered, and wing to balance flight.
>
>The AOA with the airspeed, oddly enough, worked fine
>for pitch once you
>got used to it. The AOA responded instantly to pitch
>inputs, and let you
>immediately correct them. From a controls standpoint,
>it gave great
>derivative information. The airspeed then let you dampen
>the slow pitch
>deviations. It was a great integrator. One could replicate
>an AOA
>indicator by a string on the side of a cockpit.
>
>I could fly a PAR to mins using this technique. Tiring,
>but doable.
>
>So the turn needle is the only thing seriously lacking
>in a glider.
>
>
Speak for yourself, I have a turn and slip AND a horizon
in my panel and consider them minimum equipment for
wave soaring on cloudy days in a slippery glider.

[Andrew Warbrick]

kernel.dll has caused a general protection fault, please
wait while your instrument panel reboots, would you
like to send a fault report to Microsoft?

Spinning gyro's might be passe but they don't rely
on Bill Gates flaky operating systems. I personally
don't trust Billy Boy for final glide or navigation
(I have two backups for both) never mind saving my
neck descending through cloud.

At 21:12 29 October 2004, Bill Daniels wrote:
>
>'nafod40' wrote in message
...
>> Bill Daniels wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > You can fly with just the turn needle and ASI if
>>>you learn to control
>> > airspeed trends.
>>
>> I'm being flip here a little bit, but I wonder if
>>you couldn't
>> manufacture an 'emergency gyro' that would be spun
>>up like a top by
>> battery, and would spin for enough minutes to hold
>>an attitude. Clamp it
>> onto the dash and start descending.
>>
>
>Spinning gyros are passe.
>Look at: http://www.pcflightsystems.com/egyro.html
>or: http://www.icarusinstruments.com/microEFIS.html
>
>Bill Daniels
>
>

[Ian Strachan]

In article >, Todd Pattist
> writes

>I've also had some pilots tell me they were trained years
>ago to use a standard compass

That is, an old fashioned one with pendulous suspension of the magnet
assembly. This type of compass has acceleration errors on east and west
and turning errors on north and south. What may be an "error" in terms
of registering an accurate instantaneous heading, might be turned to
advantage in a case of total failure of gyro instruments. With great
caution, of course, and IMHO not the best answer, see below.

>, head south

It is true that a pendulous compass has turning errors on South, and
could be used a sort of turn indicator on that heading.

>and steer with
>rudders.

No! A good way to get disorientated, IMHO. What is wrong with turning
in the normal way, application of (in this case) small amounts of bank
where necessary. Fly gently, don't get used to coarse use of
unnecessary control inputs. Particularly boots of rudder un-coordinated
with aileron, unless you wish to spin or do aerobatics, of course!.

However, to stay alive in instrument flying, particularly in turbulence,
there is no substitute for proper aircraft-designed gyro instruments.

I taught and examined on what we used to call "limited panel" for many
years, AND IT WORKS, with a bit of practice. That is, instrument flight
using a good old Sperry turn gyro presented through a needle display
("needle, ball, airspeed ... needle, ball, airspeed"). Turn gyros take
little power and normally run on DC, so are well suited to glider use.

People say that instrument flight using only a turn needle is difficult,
But at least it is designed for the job, unlike pendulous compasses, GPS
presentations etc. And what is difficult is limited-panel accurate
pattern turns, approaches etc., with an examiner breathing down your
neck!

Merely keeping the wings about level so as not to enter a spiral dive,
is not difficult. On a safe heading, of course, that is away from known
high ground. Try it in a two-seater with a safety pilot, but make sure
that you are really "under the hood" and are not peeping out to see the
horizon, otherwise you are not really getting proper training that might
get you out of trouble later.

The dear old Link Trainer was pretty good for this training also, but
there aren't many about now except in museums!

Of course even better if your glider has a gyro-driven Artificial
Horizon as well as that rate-gyro. Makes instrument flight for those
not in practice, including me nowadays, reasonably straightforward.

--
Ian Strachan
Lasham Gliding Centre, UK

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
Ian Strachan > wrote:

> Merely keeping the wings about level so as not to enter a spiral dive,
> is not difficult. On a safe heading, of course, that is away from known
> high ground. Try it in a two-seater with a safety pilot, but make sure
> that you are really "under the hood" and are not peeping out to see the
> horizon, otherwise you are not really getting proper training that might
> get you out of trouble later.

It's amazing how hard it is to get *true* no-visual-reference conditions
in IMC.

I've done some flying with a commercial pilot friend doing night freight
runs in small turboprops. Even in the clouds in the middle of nowhere
in NZ you can almost always see some speck of light out of the corner of
your eye, whether a farmhouse or a star, and that gives you roll
information even when you're not looking at the AH. You don't realize
how much this helps until the first time there really *is* nothing out
there.

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

[Ian Strachan]

In article >, Bruce
Hoult > writes

>It's amazing how hard it is to get *true* no-visual-reference conditions
>in IMC.
>
>I've done some flying with a commercial pilot friend doing night freight
>runs in small turboprops. Even in the clouds in the middle of nowhere
>in NZ you can almost always see some speck of light out of the corner of
>your eye, whether a farmhouse or a star, and that gives you roll
>information even when you're not looking at the AH. You don't realize
>how much this helps until the first time there really *is* nothing out
>there.

A reference if you are rolling but for a controlled descent you do not
want to be rolling. More important, what about horizon reference? I
have often seen "false horizons" in cloud layers and at night. They can
be very disorientating. For instance, I got severe "leans" once when
coming off a tanker at night when the lit tanker was in a turn. And
several times when between slanting cloud layers.

Not a glider case, of course, but "beware the false horizon" and
"believe the turn needle" would appear to be good guidance!

Incidentally the title of this thread uses the word "benign". An
accelerating spiral in a slick glider can be anything but benign. It is
not difficult, I imagine, to literally pull the wings off in an attempt
to recover. The rule on "limited panel" unusual attitude recoveries was
"don't pull until you have the turn needle within about Rate 1 of the
centre of the instrument.

--
Ian Strachan

Bentworth Hall West
Tel: +44 1420 564 195 Bentworth, Alton
Fax: +44 1420 563 140 Hampshire GU34 5LA, ENGLAND

[nafod40]

Bruce Hoult wrote:
>
> It's amazing how hard it is to get *true* no-visual-reference conditions
> in IMC.
>
> I've done some flying with a commercial pilot friend doing night freight
> runs in small turboprops. Even in the clouds in the middle of nowhere
> in NZ you can almost always see some speck of light out of the corner of
> your eye, whether a farmhouse or a star, and that gives you roll
> information even when you're not looking at the AH. You don't realize
> how much this helps until the first time there really *is* nothing out
> there.

There have been an amazing number of Navy pilots that have flown into
the water as they mistaked boat lights for either stars or an aircraft
they were joining on. I know, not pertinent to gliders, but the optical
illusions of sort of IMC/VMC can be intense and almost more disorienting.

[Stefan]

nafod40 wrote:

> There have been an amazing number of Navy pilots that have flown into
> the water as they mistaked boat lights for either stars or an aircraft

There are libraries full of books about wrong visual clues: Houses on a
hill taken for stars, a street taken for a shore line, wrong
perspectives, wrong distances, wrong altitude, etc. etc. etc. I'm always
amazed that there would still be pilots who believe they are smarter
than those who contributed to this knowledge with their blood.

If in IMC or at night, believe your instruments and nothing else. If
your aircraft (glider) is not adequately equipped, avoid clouds. This
can be done! There is no such thing as "trapped" by a layer if you act
as you should. If you feel like cloud flying, equip your glider
accordingly and learn how to use the gauges.

Stefan

[Ben Flewett]

At 15:54 02 November 2004, Stefan wrote:
>
>>There is no such thing as 'trapped' by a layer if you
>>act
>>as you should.


Sounds like you haven't done much cross country wave
flying.

If you do enough cross country wave flying you will,
sooner of later, get trapped above cloud. Sometimes
you are forced to fly part of your task above 8/8 where
we fly. Other times the cloud can close quickly and
you get caught.

We were trained to position approx 1km downwind of
a known landing point using GPS (depending on terrain),
set the glider up in a stable position and open the
airbrakes at 70kts. Not desirable by any stretch of
the imagination but sometimes a required technique.

[Stefan]

Ben Flewett wrote:

> If you do enough cross country wave flying you will,
> sooner of later, get trapped above cloud.

I do not agree. Know the weather. Allow yourself enough time to build
experience. Keep sharp on the development of the weather. Never, never,
never fly above a lenticularis. Keep your föhn gap in sight. Be sure
your glider can penetrate against the wind. And if in doubt, don't go.
But you knew all this before.

If you insist that getting trapped by cloud can't be avoided, then, by
all means, install at least a needle and get some training on it. You
simply can't control a slippery glass glider in cloud without a gyro.

Stefan

[Bert Willing]

Right. If you run the risk to get involved into this kind of scenario, plain
common sense tells that you better have at least one gyro needle on board
(that's what I do although I prefer not to get into a trap in the first
place). Anything else would be fairly irresponsible.

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Todd Pattist" > a écrit dans le message de
news: ...
> Stefan > wrote:
>
>>There is no such thing as "trapped" by a layer if you act
>>as you should.
>
> I know two pilots who admit to having to descend through a
> wave cloud deck in a glider. There is not much to be gained
> by telling them that they didn't act as they should, or that
> there's no such thing as what happened to them.
>
> In a strong wind setting up a wave, it's not that hard to
> make a mistake, get swept downwind into the sink and be
> unable to penetrate upwind across a lenticular below. While
> it would be nice to never make a mistake, some do. It's a
> good idea to think about the options before you get into a
> situation that you wouldn't be in if you'd acted "as you
> should."
>
>
> Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

[Walter Weir]

I could never get my ASW-20B to do a benign spiral. I tried many times
over a period of sixteen years and 2000 hours with flaps, spoilers,
gear, trim and CG in various positions. My technique was to set up the
configuration, then upset the attitude a bit the way rotor cloud
turbulence would, and then hands and feet off. It always would begin
with small "zoomies" which got bigger and bigger until I was forced to
take control to save my life.

My '20 was also the only glider (or throttled back power plane) that I
ever flew which was uncontrollable with the stick against the aft
stop. With every type but the '20 I could very slowly ease the stick
aft until it hit the stop and then control it indefinitely with coarse
use of aileron and rudder as it waffled downwards. Not the '20. Very
quickly it would tell me that I better push forward or it was going to
self destruct. The exception was in a very steep bank, 50 or 60
degrees, doing 10 second circles and pulling about 2 g's.

I loved my '20 - a wonderful airplane. There must be other types out
there with the same characteristics but I never came across one. This
winter while I'm floating around the skies in Florida I'll try out my
'27 and see what it does.

Walter

[Jack]

Walter Weir wrote:

> My '20 was also the only glider (or throttled back power plane) that I
> ever flew which was uncontrollable with the stick against the aft
> stop. With every type but the '20 I could very slowly ease the stick
> aft until it hit the stop and then control it indefinitely with coarse
> use of aileron and rudder as it waffled downwards.

I would think "coarse use" of the ailerons would be exactly the wrong
thing to do with the stick full aft.

Rudder is often the best, and sometimes the only, way to do high AOA
maneuvering in fixed-wing types I have flown.

In what types have you found coarse use of aileron to be of benefit at
high AOA?



Jack

[Bill Daniels]

"Ben Flewett" > wrote in message
...
> At 15:54 02 November 2004, Stefan wrote:
> >
> >>There is no such thing as 'trapped' by a layer if you
> >>act
> >>as you should.
>
>
> Sounds like you haven't done much cross country wave
> flying.
>
> If you do enough cross country wave flying you will,
> sooner of later, get trapped above cloud. Sometimes
> you are forced to fly part of your task above 8/8 where
> we fly. Other times the cloud can close quickly and
> you get caught.
>
> We were trained to position approx 1km downwind of
> a known landing point using GPS (depending on terrain),
> set the glider up in a stable position and open the
> airbrakes at 70kts. Not desirable by any stretch of
> the imagination but sometimes a required technique.
>
>
I have to agree with Ben.

I got caught above a cloud deck in wave once. It wasn't that the deck
'moved in" below me, it just formed very quickly. One moment there was a
scattered lenticular deck at 22,000 and the next there was a solid deck
below me at 12,000. There was never an option to escape VFR.

Having neither radio nor gyros, I was in no hurry to try a descent either by
benign spiral or in a stable spin so I just sat there and maintained my
position in the wave. The cloud tops marked the wave nicely. After about
an hour, the patch of moisture moved off downwind and a foehn gap appeared
in the cloud deck below. Descending through the gap meant fighting my way
down through the strong lift with full spoilers in a dive. It took almost
an hour.

I'm a believer. Sooner or later, you'll need the ability to make a blind
descent.

Bill Daniels

[Shawn]

Ben Flewett wrote:
> At 15:54 02 November 2004, Stefan wrote:
>
>>>There is no such thing as 'trapped' by a layer if you
>>>act
>>>as you should.
>
>
>
> Sounds like you haven't done much cross country wave
> flying.
>
> If you do enough cross country wave flying you will,
> sooner of later, get trapped above cloud. Sometimes
> you are forced to fly part of your task above 8/8 where
> we fly. Other times the cloud can close quickly and
> you get caught.
>
> We were trained to position approx 1km downwind of
> a known landing point using GPS (depending on terrain),
> set the glider up in a stable position and open the
> airbrakes at 70kts. Not desirable by any stretch of
> the imagination but sometimes a required technique.
>
>
>
Why downwind?

[John Firth]

I too learned to fly clouds, in the UK on Turn and Ball; those old gliders did
at least have speed limiting dve brakes which I never had to use.
When I graduated to the Oly with a German WWII artificail horizon
cloud flying was the proverbial piece of cake. When my AH failed
(low battery) about 12000 ft in Yugo '72, I was glad that I had those hours
Of time using T and B.
I was told that a skilled pilot with a Bohli freely gimballed compass
could adequately cloud fly and Bohlis were banned from World comps.
I did prove to my limited satisfaction that with great care and circumspection
one could maintain a controlled trun using the COOK vertcal bearing compass
but I do not think I would try it now.
In closing, always have a backup, if you go IFR; the offical report of a
sad accident to a single engine transatlantic delivery happened on final
IFR approach to Reyavik , when the pilot reported AH failure! (no T and B)
That is pegging your life to one unkown instrument.
Don't do it.
John Firth
Old, no longer bold pilot.

Ian
Strachan ) writes:
> In article >, Todd Pattist
> > writes
>
>>I've also had some pilots tell me they were trained years
>>ago to use a standard compass
>
> That is, an old fashioned one with pendulous suspension of the magnet
> assembly. This type of compass has acceleration errors on east and west
> and turning errors on north and south. What may be an "error" in terms
> of registering an accurate instantaneous heading, might be turned to
> advantage in a case of total failure of gyro instruments. With great
> caution, of course, and IMHO not the best answer, see below.
>
>>, head south
>
> It is true that a pendulous compass has turning errors on South, and
> could be used a sort of turn indicator on that heading.
>
>>and steer with
>>rudders.
>
> No! A good way to get disorientated, IMHO. What is wrong with turning
> in the normal way, application of (in this case) small amounts of bank
> where necessary. Fly gently, don't get used to coarse use of
> unnecessary control inputs. Particularly boots of rudder un-coordinated
> with aileron, unless you wish to spin or do aerobatics, of course!.
>
> However, to stay alive in instrument flying, particularly in turbulence,
> there is no substitute for proper aircraft-designed gyro instruments.
>
> I taught and examined on what we used to call "limited panel" for many
> years, AND IT WORKS, with a bit of practice. That is, instrument flight
> using a good old Sperry turn gyro presented through a needle display
> ("needle, ball, airspeed ... needle, ball, airspeed"). Turn gyros take
> little power and normally run on DC, so are well suited to glider use.
>
> People say that instrument flight using only a turn needle is difficult,
> But at least it is designed for the job, unlike pendulous compasses, GPS
> presentations etc. And what is difficult is limited-panel accurate
> pattern turns, approaches etc., with an examiner breathing down your
> neck!
>
> Merely keeping the wings about level so as not to enter a spiral dive,
> is not difficult. On a safe heading, of course, that is away from known
> high ground. Try it in a two-seater with a safety pilot, but make sure
> that you are really "under the hood" and are not peeping out to see the
> horizon, otherwise you are not really getting proper training that might
> get you out of trouble later.
>
> The dear old Link Trainer was pretty good for this training also, but
> there aren't many about now except in museums!
>
> Of course even better if your glider has a gyro-driven Artificial
> Horizon as well as that rate-gyro. Makes instrument flight for those
> not in practice, including me nowadays, reasonably straightforward.
>
> --
> Ian Strachan
> Lasham Gliding Centre, UK
>
>

[clay thomas]

Shawn > wrote in message >...
> Ben Flewett wrote:
> > At 15:54 02 November 2004, Stefan wrote:
> >
> >>>There is no such thing as 'trapped' by a layer if you
> >>>act
> >>>as you should.
> >
> >
> >
> > Sounds like you haven't done much cross country wave
> > flying.
> >
> > If you do enough cross country wave flying you will,
> > sooner of later, get trapped above cloud. Sometimes
> > you are forced to fly part of your task above 8/8 where
> > we fly. Other times the cloud can close quickly and
> > you get caught.
> >
> > We were trained to position approx 1km downwind of
> > a known landing point using GPS (depending on terrain),
> > set the glider up in a stable position and open the
> > airbrakes at 70kts. Not desirable by any stretch of
> > the imagination but sometimes a required technique.
> >
> >
> >
> Why downwind?

Am I missing something here? If I were caught above a cloud layer, I
would go to into a spin before trying a "benign spiral". A spin is a
controlled maneuver where a spiral seems more likely to get out of
control.

[tango4]

>
> Am I missing something here? If I were caught above a cloud layer, I
> would go to into a spin before trying a "benign spiral". A spin is a
> controlled maneuver where a spiral seems more likely to get out of
> control.

Flight handbook reads: "Intentional spins are prohibited"

Ian

[Stefan]

clay thomas wrote:

> Am I missing something here? If I were caught above a cloud layer, I
> would go to into a spin before trying a "benign spiral". A spin is a
> controlled maneuver where a spiral seems more likely to get out of
> control.

You are missing that many gliders won't stay in the spin but rather go
into a spiral after a few turns.

Stefan

[Stefan]

Todd Pattist wrote:

> And even if they will stay in a spin, U.S. certification
> standards do not require that the spin be recoverable after
> extended spinning (6 turns or 3 seconds) .

JAA standards require a recovery with the standard procedure after 5
turns. I wouldn't assume that the factories build an extra line of
gliders for the USA that won't recover, just to please the FAA. (I'm
talking of modern gliders here, Schweitzer's milage may vary.)

Stefan

[Eric Greenwell]

Stefan wrote:
> Todd Pattist wrote:
>
>> And even if they will stay in a spin, U.S. certification
>> standards do not require that the spin be recoverable after
>> extended spinning (6 turns or 3 seconds) .
>
>
> JAA standards require a recovery with the standard procedure after 5
> turns. I wouldn't assume that the factories build an extra line of
> gliders for the USA that won't recover, just to please the FAA. (I'm
> talking of modern gliders here, Schweitzer's milage may vary.)

Five turns, six turns - not a very comforting margin if you are spinning
down through a cloud when you might need many more than that. I don't
want to be a test pilot when I really need to descend through a cloud;
in fact, I don't want to be a test pilot determining how many times the
glider can spin before it won't recover!

At least, the benign spiral can be safely tested before you need it.
Regardless of the technique (T&B, AH, GPS or compass heading, spinning,
benign spiral) a pilot chooses to rely on when descending through clouds
in wave conditions, the pilot should practice it in those conditions
before it's needed. And, I think, include some turbulence if your waves
have it.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Stefan]

Eric Greenwell wrote:

> Five turns, six turns - not a very comforting margin if you are spinning
> down through a cloud when you might need many more than that.

The point is, it's assumed that after 5 turns the spin is fully
established and nothing new will happen in the next 27 turns. That said,
a spin is not a recommended method to escape cloud in a modern glider.

Stefan

[Erik mann]

(John Firth) wrote in message >...
> I too learned to fly clouds, in the UK on Turn and Ball; those old gliders did
> at least have speed limiting dve brakes which I never had to use.
> When I graduated to the Oly with a German WWII artificail horizon
> cloud flying was the proverbial piece of cake. When my AH failed
> (low battery) about 12000 ft in Yugo '72, I was glad that I had those hours
> Of time using T and B.
> I was told that a skilled pilot with a Bohli freely gimballed compass
> could adequately cloud fly and Bohlis were banned from World comps.
> I did prove to my limited satisfaction that with great care and circumspection
> one could maintain a controlled trun using the COOK vertcal bearing compass
> but I do not think I would try it now.
> In closing, always have a backup, if you go IFR; the offical report of a
> sad accident to a single engine transatlantic delivery happened on final
> IFR approach to Reyavik , when the pilot reported AH failure! (no T and B)
> That is pegging your life to one unkown instrument.
> Don't do it.
> John Firth
> Old, no longer bold pilot.
>
.... which brings us back to the question of whether or not modern GPS
displays of the sort that Glide Navigator provides would be adequate
on an EMERGENCY basis to provide roll reference. Just to clarify, I
fully agree with all of the posts that intentional flight in IMC
without proper instruments is nuts. I have over the last 20 years
only a few hours of needle/ball/airspeed training and practice, and I
would never rely on it today given how rusty I am. However, it's
basically a moot point in the US, as almost no gliders are equipped
with an AH or even an electric T&B. So, in a pinch, the question on
the table is: Benign Spiral or maintain level flight (if possible)
using available instruments? My guess is that the GPS output is
probably too coarse to provide rapid enough roll information,
especially in turbulence. I think I'll go up with someone in a
two-place and give it a shot. Report to follow...

P3

[Shawn]

Stefan wrote:
> Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
>> Five turns, six turns - not a very comforting margin if you are
>> spinning down through a cloud when you might need many more than that.
>
>
> The point is, it's assumed that after 5 turns the spin is fully
> established and nothing new will happen in the next 27 turns. That said,
> a spin is not a recommended method to escape cloud in a modern glider.

Fully established? Flat and unrecoverable maybe. Also, I couldn't get
our club Blanik to spin (dual) three times before it would end up in a
spiral dive.

Shawn

[Stefan]

Shawn wrote:

> Fully established? Flat and unrecoverable maybe.

If it meets the JAR certification (which I don't know), it's not. That's
the whole point of certification.

> Also, I couldn't get
> our club Blanik to spin (dual) three times before it would end up in a
> spiral dive.

If you read my earlier posts, you'd see that this was exactly my point.

Stefan

[Mike Hessington]

You would be surprised how fast a föhn gap can close
- easily within a minute.

You can descend about 12000 feet per minute in a decent
modern glider. However, if you are more than 12000
feet above the cloud layer, or don’t notice the gap
closing immediately, your stuffed.

However, if you are content to duffer around going
nowhere and not climbing too high you will probably
be able to avoid ever getting caught above cloud.
But if you want to fly long tasks in the wave you will
occasionally need to fly over 8/8 cloud. Fact.

Mike



At 16:48 02 November 2004, Stefan wrote:
>Ben Flewett wrote:
>
>> If you do enough cross country wave flying you will,
>> sooner of later, get trapped above cloud.
>
>I do not agree. Know the weather. Allow yourself enough
>time to build
>experience. Keep sharp on the development of the weather.
>Never, never,
>never fly above a lenticularis. Keep your föhn gap
>in sight. Be sure
>your glider can penetrate against the wind. And if
>in doubt, don't go.
>But you knew all this before.
>
>If you insist that getting trapped by cloud can't be
>avoided, then, by
>all means, install at least a needle and get some training
>on it. You
>simply can't control a slippery glass glider in cloud
>without a gyro.
>
>Stefan
>
>

[Edward Downham]

I think part of the problem is the normal pilot response to a worsening
situation: equipment and experience play a huge part.

If people are 'caught' above cloud with no blind flying instruments, there is a
definite tendency to go into 'panic mode' and take the first available
(unlikely to be the best) option and immediately try to spin/dive through the
cloud layer. Much in the same way that stressed pilots in the mountains
airbrake down (and crash) into tiny bits of green.

If you know where you are (most gliders have GPS) and are not actually IN cloud
then you have time to work out what you are going to do. (Although maybe some
thought should have been given to this earlier?) Sometimes just waiting will
improve the situation. Or you might have to fly somewhere else where you can
let down clear of cloud.

The world of wave/IMC glider flying is far removed from that of normal thermal
soaring. Under the clouds, if the sun goes in, the lift stops and you land.
Over them, it just carries on. When you are wave flying a sailplane on a cloudy
day, especially at altitude, you are operating in conditions where most other
aircraft are pressurised, turbine powered, de-iced and contain a full suite of
navigation and autoflight equipment.

When I go wave flying with others, I am always surprised by the seeming lack of
PREPARATION or THOUGHT about what might happen. I suppose I have rescued too
many people/gliders from the sides of mountains or edges of lakes. Wave flying
above 8/8 gives me a real 'heightened sense of awareness', i.e. I'm scared.
Doesn't stop me enjoying it immensely, though. :)

A lack of any coherent contingency plans feauture strongly in
incidents/accidents. What will I do if the wave gap closes? My oxygen gets
low/fails? Controls start freezing up? Airbrakes won't open? etc. Where are my
nearest suitable landing places? How will I get to them? How can I fly a
non-precision approach in a glider in a strong wind, using GPS?

The answers to most of these questions can be worked out on the ground, at your
leisure.

To those of you who regularly fly above cloud with no instruments: Good Luck!
(You'll need it.)

I don't understand why in some countries most gliders have no IF instruments in
their panels at all. I know that sailplanes are not allowed to fly in IMC in
some states but I'm sure there aren't laws preventing the FITTING and even
non-IMC USE of blind flying kit? After all, you don't take off with the
INTENTION of using your parachute but it might come in handy at some point...

You can pick up a perfectly serviceable T&S/ball combo for $100-200. In fact
I've just seen one on Ebay for $9 with 3 days to run. This could be the
cheapest instrument in your glider and one day the most vital.

[Stefan]

Mike Hessington wrote:

> But if you want to fly long tasks in the wave you will
> occasionally need to fly over 8/8 cloud. Fact.

This could be argued, but I'm not going to do so. As I said in an
earlier post: If you are willing to put yourself in that situation, then
by all means install needle and ball. There is no way to bring a
slippery glider safely down without, and there is no substitute. All
those GPS gizmos are nice, but far too slow.

And, while we are at it, be sure thre is still some VMC left below the
cloud deck, and there is a reachable landing spot. After all, waves tend
to form over mountains. But then, this may be a question of temperament.
I've heard that there are even people who enjoy night flying in a light
single.

Stefan

[Bert Willing]

If you are in such a situation and have not even a T&B installed (as Edward
points out, a $100-200 item), you're just plain stupid. Fact.


--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Mike Hessington" > a écrit dans le
message de news: ...
> You would be surprised how fast a föhn gap can close
> - easily within a minute.
>
> You can descend about 12000 feet per minute in a decent
> modern glider. However, if you are more than 12000
> feet above the cloud layer, or don't notice the gap
> closing immediately, your stuffed.
>
> However, if you are content to duffer around going
> nowhere and not climbing too high you will probably
> be able to avoid ever getting caught above cloud.
> But if you want to fly long tasks in the wave you will
> occasionally need to fly over 8/8 cloud. Fact.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> At 16:48 02 November 2004, Stefan wrote:
>>Ben Flewett wrote:
>>
>>> If you do enough cross country wave flying you will,
>>> sooner of later, get trapped above cloud.
>>
>>I do not agree. Know the weather. Allow yourself enough
>>time to build
>>experience. Keep sharp on the development of the weather.
>>Never, never,
>>never fly above a lenticularis. Keep your föhn gap
>>in sight. Be sure
>>your glider can penetrate against the wind. And if
>>in doubt, don't go.
>>But you knew all this before.
>>
>>If you insist that getting trapped by cloud can't be
>>avoided, then, by
>>all means, install at least a needle and get some training
>>on it. You
>>simply can't control a slippery glass glider in cloud
>>without a gyro.
>>
>>Stefan
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Mark James Boyd]

I was surprised to find in a local club a beautifully equiped
glider (actually, several), none of which had any IMC instruments.
I would expect at least a small T&B in each one.

Panel space was an issue, and I suppose there is some current draw.
And I'd expect it might be hard to find an A&P (mechamic) to install
one on a switch :(

I've had a gyro failure in IMC at night in a power plane and
the T&B definitely saved my life. I guess this is why
I'm really a fan of them, but perhaps I'm a bit biased.

Is a T&B really that rare in gliders? When I go to Minden some
day, am I niave to assume the commercially rented gliders
there will have a T&B?

In article >,
Stefan > wrote:
>Mike Hessington wrote:
>
>> But if you want to fly long tasks in the wave you will
>> occasionally need to fly over 8/8 cloud. Fact.
>
>This could be argued, but I'm not going to do so. As I said in an
>earlier post: If you are willing to put yourself in that situation, then
>by all means install needle and ball. There is no way to bring a
>slippery glider safely down without, and there is no substitute. All
>those GPS gizmos are nice, but far too slow.
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Ian Strachan]

In article >, Todd Pattist
> writes
(Mark James Boyd) wrote:
>
>>I was surprised to find in a local club a beautifully equiped
>>glider (actually, several), none of which had any IMC instruments.
>>I would expect at least a small T&B in each one.
>
>Training gliders are for training, and no one gives
>instrument training in gliders that I'm aware of.

Plenty goes on in the UK. Two-seaters can be flown "under the hood" for
instrument training at a number of UK clubs.

A tandem two-seater can be used for training from the rear cockpit with
an instructor/safety pilot in the front. The rear cockpit can be shaded
out with curtains so that the trainee can only see the instruments and
not the outside world. The curtains can be raised for launch and
landing.

A side-by-side two-seater can be flown with the pilot being trained
wearing a hood that obscures the outside world but allows the
instruments to be seen. Hood-peeping should be discouraged if training
is to be properly conducted.

This sort of training is less sophisticated than that conducted in
professional aviation, but is effective in a sport aviation environment.
IMHO.

Others have made the point that above 8/8 there is no substitute to
having at least one gyro instrument. Even the humble turn and slip
instrument will do! It's cheap, cheerful and works safely with little
battery power.

--
Ian Strachan
Lasham Gliding Centre, UK

[Stefan]

Todd Pattist wrote:

> For high performance gliders I'm surprised no one has
> mentioned that the installation of gyro instruments is
> prohibited in competitions.

That's why our gyros are installed with nuts with a small hole in them,
so you can cover the iinstrument with a piece of cardboard and seal it.

Stefan

[Mark James Boyd]

Todd Pattist > wrote:
>
>Training gliders are for training, and no one gives
>instrument training in gliders that I'm aware of.

Well, we've got a T&B in our Blanik, and if I can get the
thing on power, I plan to do at least the lifesaving IMC
training in it...

At least a few glider pilots have told me they've landed after dark too,
in the horizonless desert. I myself have been in horizonless smoke
(thankfully in a glider with a T&B). I've been in that same glider
(briefly) disoriented in craggy mountains, solved by a glance at the T&B.

>I suspect
>there's a bit of "too expensive" and "if it's installed
>they'll be tempted to use it" in there too. That said, I've
>seen them in rental 2-32's and a club Blanik, but they don't
>seem to be common.

The "tempted to use it" comment is apt. Despite warnings not to
practice emergency procedures solo, and signing a form to that effect,
I've had pre-license (power) students fly solo IMC and do spins
on their own. There's no substitute for (bad) judgement...

> For high performance gliders I'm surprised no one has
>mentioned that the installation of gyro instruments is
>prohibited in competitions. Last I looked, you couldn't
>even install a Cook or Bohli compass.

That these gliders then regularly don't have this equipment is
unfortunate. Is the rule really "can't be in the aircraft" or is it
"can't be operational?" One would hope the latter is sufficient.

>>Panel space was an issue, and I suppose there is some current draw.
>>And I'd expect it might be hard to find an A&P (mechamic) to install
>>one on a switch :(
>
>More good points. If I flew at all regularly in wave, I'd
>seriously consider installing a T&B, but my glider is
>experimental, so I can do what I like..

From a private e-mail, one sender mentioned neither the rental 103
nor Discus he flew in Minden had T&Bs...

I want to point out to those who perhaps are considering installing
a gyro in their glider, that a Turn and Bank and a Turn Co-ordinator
are two (slightly) different things. A T&B has a gyro on a plane so it
only gives rate of turn information AND IS MUCH LESS SUSCEPTIBLE TO
TURBULENCE. The TC has the gyro slightly canted so it gets a tiny
bit of roll information displayed too. Although the TC is easier to
use for inexperienced IMC pilots (because it acts a tiny bit like a
AI), it is much less useful in tubulence, which is often when it is
most critically needed. I'm not at all a fan of a TC. Be careful
when buying something too, because modern instrument makers put
mixed displays on the gyros. If it looks like a TC (little airplane wings)
it might not be, and if it has a little needle and doghouses, it might not
be a T&B. I'd be careful at initial purchase to make sure what I got,
and then get an old hand to test fly it for you and make sure it doesn't
move on the initial roll-in or during dutch rolls...

As far as current draw, that's another thing I can't speak to.
Ultimately I suppose whether one installs a T&B is an individual decision...

>
>Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C
>(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Mark James Boyd]

Ian Strachan > wrote:
>
>This sort of training is less sophisticated than that conducted in
>professional aviation, but is effective in a sport aviation environment.
>IMHO.
>
>Others have made the point that above 8/8 there is no substitute to
>having at least one gyro instrument. Even the humble turn and slip
>instrument will do! It's cheap, cheerful and works safely with little
>battery power.

I'm glad to hear you folks over there do this. And I bet
you have few IMC related accidents, eh? :)
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Ian Strachan]

In article <418cee9a$1@darkstar>, Mark James Boyd >
writes

snip

>I want to point out to those who perhaps are considering installing
>a gyro in their glider, that a Turn and Bank and a Turn Co-ordinator
>are two (slightly) different things.

>A T&B has a gyro on a plane so it
>only gives rate of turn information

As I understand it, some of your US turn-gyro instruments have a panel
presentation from the turn-gyro not with a needle but with an aircraft.
I have seen these and think that they are seriously misleading,
particularly for the inexperienced instrument pilot.

What I mean is that they can mislead the pilot into thinking that he is
getting angle-of-bank information from the instrument when he is in fact
getting rate-of-turn from the standard Sperry 1920s design of
spring-constrained rate-gyro system. As I said in an earlier posting,
this was a simple and breakthrough system for retaining control in
cloud, but the rate gyro is just that, a measure of rate of change of
direction. More precisely, direction in the plane at right angles to
the basic spin direction of the gyro.

In my recollection, turn gyro instruments are set up in the lab so that
a rate 1 turn takes 2 minutes to go through 360 degrees. If my
recollection is right, a rate 1 turn gives a 180 heading reversal in one
minute. On "limited panel" we used to practice these as so-called
"pattern turns".

>AND IS MUCH LESS SUSCEPTIBLE TO
>TURBULENCE.

Compared to what, and why??

>The TC has the gyro slightly canted so it gets a tiny
>bit of roll information displayed too.

You will have to explain this, I do not understand.

Rate-of-Turn is related to steady bank angle, of course, but these are
not quite the same, particularly in turbulence or when recovering from
"unusual positions".

A simple Sperry-type rate-gyro instrument gives an output in
rate-of-turn whether it is by a needle (rate 1, 2, 3 etc) or a
(misleading) aircraft silhouette. The gyro spin is in the direction of
the longitudinal axis of the aircraft. Also the gyro could be made to
spin in either one way or the other (clockwise or anti-clock, of you
like). In an aircraft turn instrument, the gyro is designed to spin in
the direction so that application of "G" increases the needle indication
rather than decreases it (the so-called G-error for turn indicators).

The consequence is that if you wire up the DC to your turn indicator the
wrong way, the gyro also rotates in the wrong way and you lose its
sensitivity under G.

Such as in a spiral dive when you could pull the wings off because as
you pull the needle moves to the middle and you think that the wings are
nearly level, and so pull harder. But they ain't anywhere near level,
just think about it ......

So, fit a turn gyro instrument and make double-sure that the DC is wired
the way it was intended.

Test it by flying in VMC with the gyro on, make a steady rate 1 turn and
then pull a little G. Make sure that the needle deflects further, not
goes towards the middle. This could save your life if you ever get in
an inadvertent spiral in cloud.

--
Ian Strachan
Ex military Instrument Rating Examiner
Lasham Gliding Centre, UK

[John Firth]

Erik mann ) writes:
> (John Firth) wrote in message >...
>> I too learned to fly clouds, in the UK on Turn and Ball; those old gliders did
>> at least have speed limiting dve brakes which I never had to use.
>> When I graduated to the Oly with a German WWII artificail horizon
>> cloud flying was the proverbial piece of cake. When my AH failed
>> (low battery) about 12000 ft in Yugo '72, I was glad that I had those hours
>> Of time using T and B.
>> I was told that a skilled pilot with a Bohli freely gimballed compass
>> could adequately cloud fly and Bohlis were banned from World comps.
>> I did prove to my limited satisfaction that with great care and circumspection
>> one could maintain a controlled trun using the COOK vertcal bearing compass
>> but I do not think I would try it now.
>> In closing, always have a backup, if you go IFR; the offical report of a
>> sad accident to a single engine transatlantic delivery happened on final
>> IFR approach to Reyavik , when the pilot reported AH failure! (no T and B)
>> That is pegging your life to one unkown instrument.
>> Don't do it.
>> John Firth
>> Old, no longer bold pilot.
>>
> ... which brings us back to the question of whether or not modern GPS
> displays of the sort that Glide Navigator provides would be adequate
> on an EMERGENCY basis to provide roll reference. Just to clarify, I
> fully agree with all of the posts that intentional flight in IMC
> without proper instruments is nuts. I have over the last 20 years
> only a few hours of needle/ball/airspeed training and practice, and I
> would never rely on it today given how rusty I am. However, it's
> basically a moot point in the US, as almost no gliders are equipped
> with an AH or even an electric T&B. So, in a pinch, the question on
> the table is: Benign Spiral or maintain level flight (if possible)
> using available instruments? My guess is that the GPS output is
> probably too coarse to provide rapid enough roll information,
> especially in turbulence. I think I'll go up with someone in a
> two-place and give it a shot. Report to follow...
>
> P3


The track screen on my basic Garmin GPS provides a heading arrow and speed.
The heading certainly gets up dated fast enough to control a striaght heading
and probaly a skilled pilot could use it as a turn indicator, just like like
a gyro compass; might be worth checking out for emergencies.

John Firth Old and maybe more prudent.