Slip to landing on PPG practical test [Archive]

Roger Worden

October 31st 04, 05:50 AM

I'm preparing for my Private test, and in discussing it with the local FAA
examiner, he indicated that one item on the test is a landing with no drag
devices, using only a turning and forward slips. As he explained it, the
task in the PTS is to demonstrate the ability to land totally WITHOUT
airbrakes, to simulate a landing wherein the airbrakes have failed.

Throughout my training I've practiced many turning slips to FINAL APPROACH
(to lose altitude) without airbrakes, but I have always ended the slip and
landed normally by using the airbrakes. In fact, the PTS says "turning slips
to LANDING, with and without the use of drag devices". (See the PTS task
below.) He said this landing does not have to be to a precise point.

R. TASK: SLIPS TO LANDING
REFERENCES: Soaring Flight Manual, Glider Flight Manual.
Objective. To determine that the applicant:
1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to forward, side, and turning
slips to landing, with and without the use of drag devices.
2. Recognizes the situation where a slip should be used to land in a desired
area.
3. Establishes a slip without the use of drag devices.
4. Maintains the desired ground track.
5. Maintains proper approach attitude.
6. Makes smooth, proper, and positive control applications during recovery
from the slip.
7. Touches down smoothly within the designated landing area.

Working through this with one of my instructors today (a very stable day
with absolutely no wind), we had a hard time getting our Blanik L13 to
descend steeply enough even with a complete, full-rudder slip. Even after
extending the downwind, widening the pattern, and slipping all the way from
the base turn, through the base leg, in the final turn and most of the
final, we're still too high. We have to resort to using airbrakes or we
float the entire length of the field. It would seem that we would need to
extend the downwind extraordinarily, or as another instructor suggested,
start the pattern uncomfortably low. We already were entering the 45 at 700'
AGL instead of the usual 1000' .

So two questions, for CFIs or examiners or recent test-takers:

1. Is this the common interpretation of the task below? No drag devices, all
the way to the ground?

2. Have you experienced/how would you deal with what seems to be a rather
low drag ratio even with a full-rudder slip?

Chris Rollings

October 31st 04, 06:18 AM

Borrow a Duo-Discus from somewhere and ask your local
FAA inspector to demonstrate a landing without use
of the drag devices. Failing that just ask him to
show you in the Blanik. I suggest you watch from on
the ground, in case he doesn't know when to give up.

At 06:18 31 October 2004, Roger Worden wrote:
>I'm preparing for my Private test, and in discussing
>it with the local FAA
>examiner, he indicated that one item on the test is
>a landing with no drag
>devices, using only a turning and forward slips. As
>he explained it, the
>task in the PTS is to demonstrate the ability to land
>totally WITHOUT
>airbrakes, to simulate a landing wherein the airbrakes
>have failed.
>
>Throughout my training I've practiced many turning
>slips to FINAL APPROACH
>(to lose altitude) without airbrakes, but I have always
>ended the slip and
>landed normally by using the airbrakes. In fact, the
>PTS says 'turning slips
>to LANDING, with and without the use of drag devices'.
>(See the PTS task
>below.) He said this landing does not have to be to
>a precise point.
>
>R. TASK: SLIPS TO LANDING
>REFERENCES: Soaring Flight Manual, Glider Flight Manual.
>Objective. To determine that the applicant:
>1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to forward,
>side, and turning
>slips to landing, with and without the use of drag
>devices.
>2. Recognizes the situation where a slip should be
>used to land in a desired
>area.
>3. Establishes a slip without the use of drag devices.
>4. Maintains the desired ground track.
>5. Maintains proper approach attitude.
>6. Makes smooth, proper, and positive control applications
>during recovery
>from the slip.
>7. Touches down smoothly within the designated landing
>area.
>
>
>Working through this with one of my instructors today
>(a very stable day
>with absolutely no wind), we had a hard time getting
>our Blanik L13 to
>descend steeply enough even with a complete, full-rudder
>slip. Even after
>extending the downwind, widening the pattern, and slipping
>all the way from
>the base turn, through the base leg, in the final turn
>and most of the
>final, we're still too high. We have to resort to using
>airbrakes or we
>float the entire length of the field. It would seem
>that we would need to
>extend the downwind extraordinarily, or as another
>instructor suggested,
>start the pattern uncomfortably low. We already were
>entering the 45 at 700'
>AGL instead of the usual 1000' .
>
>So two questions, for CFIs or examiners or recent test-takers:
>
>1. Is this the common interpretation of the task below?
>No drag devices, all
>the way to the ground?
>
>2. Have you experienced/how would you deal with what
>seems to be a rather
>low drag ratio even with a full-rudder slip?
>
>
>

Bruce Hoult

October 31st 04, 06:29 AM

In article >,
"Roger Worden" > wrote:

> I'm preparing for my Private test, and in discussing it with the local FAA
> examiner, he indicated that one item on the test is a landing with no drag
> devices, using only a turning and forward slips. As he explained it, the
> task in the PTS is to demonstrate the ability to land totally WITHOUT
> airbrakes, to simulate a landing wherein the airbrakes have failed.

We don't do that here but I think it's a bull**** thing to ask for in a
modern glider, unless your airfield or *huge* or you don't mind bending
the glider because your airbrakes really *have* failed.

It's probably OK in a 2-33 which with the airbrakes closed flies about
like a modern glider with the airbrakes open [1], but it's not exactly a
good idea in a Blanik, let alone anything glass.

[1] ok, I'm exaggerating

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

Bill Daniels

October 31st 04, 12:30 PM

"Roger Worden" > wrote in message
om...
> I'm preparing for my Private test, and in discussing it with the local FAA
> examiner, he indicated that one item on the test is a landing with no drag
> devices, using only a turning and forward slips. As he explained it, the
> task in the PTS is to demonstrate the ability to land totally WITHOUT
> airbrakes, to simulate a landing wherein the airbrakes have failed.
>
> Throughout my training I've practiced many turning slips to FINAL APPROACH
> (to lose altitude) without airbrakes, but I have always ended the slip and
> landed normally by using the airbrakes. In fact, the PTS says "turning
slips
> to LANDING, with and without the use of drag devices". (See the PTS task
> below.) He said this landing does not have to be to a precise point.
>
> R. TASK: SLIPS TO LANDING
> REFERENCES: Soaring Flight Manual, Glider Flight Manual.
> Objective. To determine that the applicant:
> 1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to forward, side, and
turning
> slips to landing, with and without the use of drag devices.
> 2. Recognizes the situation where a slip should be used to land in a
desired
> area.
> 3. Establishes a slip without the use of drag devices.
> 4. Maintains the desired ground track.
> 5. Maintains proper approach attitude.
> 6. Makes smooth, proper, and positive control applications during recovery
> from the slip.
> 7. Touches down smoothly within the designated landing area.
>
>
> Working through this with one of my instructors today (a very stable day
> with absolutely no wind), we had a hard time getting our Blanik L13 to
> descend steeply enough even with a complete, full-rudder slip. Even after
> extending the downwind, widening the pattern, and slipping all the way
from
> the base turn, through the base leg, in the final turn and most of the
> final, we're still too high. We have to resort to using airbrakes or we
> float the entire length of the field. It would seem that we would need to
> extend the downwind extraordinarily, or as another instructor suggested,
> start the pattern uncomfortably low. We already were entering the 45 at
700'
> AGL instead of the usual 1000' .
>
> So two questions, for CFIs or examiners or recent test-takers:
>
> 1. Is this the common interpretation of the task below? No drag devices,
all
> the way to the ground?
>
> 2. Have you experienced/how would you deal with what seems to be a rather
> low drag ratio even with a full-rudder slip?
>
>

The 'no spoiler' landing is a 2-33 specific maneuver. It is quite difficult
and dangerous to try that with a modern trainer. It needs to be taken out
of the PTS. Until it is removed, examiners need to be educated to the
danger.

I suggest that you take that position with the examiner. If he insists on a
slip to landing, show your good judgement by refusing to do it in the Blanik
and offer to do it in a 2-33 if one is available.

Bill Daniels

Bill Daniels

Slick

October 31st 04, 01:40 PM

I just took my exam a little over a year ago. All my examiner wanted was for
me to use a full slip during either downwind, base , or final, not all
three. I did my slip on downwind and he was fine with it as long as I kept
a normal decent and distance from the field. After I turned base I was
allowed to use spoilers. Of course, that was here in Ohio where I took my
exam.
"Roger Worden" > wrote in message
om...
> I'm preparing for my Private test, and in discussing it with the local FAA
> examiner, he indicated that one item on the test is a landing with no drag
> devices, using only a turning and forward slips. As he explained it, the
> task in the PTS is to demonstrate the ability to land totally WITHOUT
> airbrakes, to simulate a landing wherein the airbrakes have failed.
>
> Throughout my training I've practiced many turning slips to FINAL APPROACH
> (to lose altitude) without airbrakes, but I have always ended the slip and
> landed normally by using the airbrakes. In fact, the PTS says "turning
slips
> to LANDING, with and without the use of drag devices". (See the PTS task
> below.) He said this landing does not have to be to a precise point.
>
> R. TASK: SLIPS TO LANDING
> REFERENCES: Soaring Flight Manual, Glider Flight Manual.
> Objective. To determine that the applicant:
> 1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to forward, side, and
turning
> slips to landing, with and without the use of drag devices.
> 2. Recognizes the situation where a slip should be used to land in a
desired
> area.
> 3. Establishes a slip without the use of drag devices.
> 4. Maintains the desired ground track.
> 5. Maintains proper approach attitude.
> 6. Makes smooth, proper, and positive control applications during recovery
> from the slip.
> 7. Touches down smoothly within the designated landing area.
>
>
> Working through this with one of my instructors today (a very stable day
> with absolutely no wind), we had a hard time getting our Blanik L13 to
> descend steeply enough even with a complete, full-rudder slip. Even after
> extending the downwind, widening the pattern, and slipping all the way
from
> the base turn, through the base leg, in the final turn and most of the
> final, we're still too high. We have to resort to using airbrakes or we
> float the entire length of the field. It would seem that we would need to
> extend the downwind extraordinarily, or as another instructor suggested,
> start the pattern uncomfortably low. We already were entering the 45 at
700'
> AGL instead of the usual 1000' .
>
> So two questions, for CFIs or examiners or recent test-takers:
>
> 1. Is this the common interpretation of the task below? No drag devices,
all
> the way to the ground?
>
> 2. Have you experienced/how would you deal with what seems to be a rather
> low drag ratio even with a full-rudder slip?
>
>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

October 31st 04, 02:52 PM

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 05:50:43 GMT, "Roger Worden" >
wrote:

>I'm preparing for my Private test, and in discussing it with the local FAA
>examiner, he indicated that one item on the test is a landing with no drag
>devices, using only a turning and forward slips. As he explained it, the
>task in the PTS is to demonstrate the ability to land totally WITHOUT
>airbrakes, to simulate a landing wherein the airbrakes have failed.
>
>Throughout my training I've practiced many turning slips to FINAL APPROACH
>(to lose altitude) without airbrakes, but I have always ended the slip and
>landed normally by using the airbrakes. In fact, the PTS says "turning slips
>to LANDING, with and without the use of drag devices". (See the PTS task
>below.) He said this landing does not have to be to a precise point.

<snip>
>

>
>So two questions, for CFIs or examiners or recent test-takers:
>
>1. Is this the common interpretation of the task below? No drag devices, all
>the way to the ground?
>
>2. Have you experienced/how would you deal with what seems to be a rather
>low drag ratio even with a full-rudder slip?
>

This subject was addressed in the January 2000 FAA publication
"Desginee Update". A slip to complete landing is not required. Here
is the quote from that publication;

“GLIDER SLIPS”
For you folks who operate in the glider community,
the April 1999 Private and Commercial Pilot-Glider
Practical Test Standards include a landing TASK
entitled “Slips to Landing.” In the objective, the
applicant is required to “establish a slip without the
use of drag devices” and then complete a landing.
We have had questions on whether the applicant
should complete the landing, with or without the
use of drag devices.
There was never any intent to require an applicant to
complete the landing without the use of drag
devices. The applicant is only required to
demonstrate a slip (forward or side) without using
drag devices, to position the glider for a safe
landing. Element 6 of the TASK states; “make
smooth, proper, and positive control applications
during recovery from the slip.” Once this has been
accomplished, the maneuver being evaluated is
over. The applicant then lands the glider within the
designated landing area, using drag devices as
appropriate.
Most important for examiner standardization, the
examiner should not add or decrease elements to
this task, or any other task, by asking the applicant
to do more or less than is required.

Here is a link to that publication;
http://av-info.faa.gov/data/designeeupdate/udjan00.pdf

I suggest you print it out and give a copy to the examiner.

Judy Ruprecht

October 31st 04, 03:24 PM

At 13:00 31 October 2004, an aspiring private pilot
outlined the like-a-lawn-dart method of using slips
to a landing, and asked:

>> 1. Is this the common interpretation of the task...
>>No drag devices,
>all
>> the way to the ground?

Nope. (This from a DE who's administered over 350 private,
commercial & CFI-G flight tests in 25 years.) I don't
ask any applicant to perform any maneuver I haven't
done recently in the same model aircraft, in the same
conditions and preferably at the same airport used
for the flight test. On a light- or no-wind day, I
doubt I could land most gliders as you describe without
having set up a ridiculously low final approach in
the first place. (Geez, Louise, I'd flunk myself for
that!)

>> 2. Have you experienced/how would you deal with what
>>seems to be a rather
>> low drag ratio even with a full-rudder slip?

If you mean slipping like crazy on final with minimal
effect on the glideslope, Yup. And in my case, I quickly
discovered the joys of situational awareness, well-timed
S-turns and strict attention to speed control. (eg:
get past 'Uh-Oh!' and get on with solving the problem.)
The first three rules of flying are and will ever be'
Fly the aircraft! Fly the aircraft! and Fly the aircraft!
(With the implied assumption that you know what's possible/safe
FOR the aircraft in question IN the extant situation.)

Ask your CFI to have a heart-to-heart with the DE.
If he/she is 'hard over' on slipping all the way to
the ground irrespective of aircraft and airport concerns,
find another DE.

Judy

Andreas Maurer

October 31st 04, 05:22 PM

Wayne Paul

October 31st 04, 05:43 PM

I took my practical flight test in an L-13 Blanik and was required to land
without the use of spoilers.

When I checked the spoilers on the down wind, the examiner informed me that
they were frozen shut. He also picked a spot on the field where he wanted
me to land. I started my slip prior to turning base and continued it on
final making adjustments as necessary to land on the designated spot.

Driggs, Idaho was the location of the examination. The field is a 6,200
feet MSL and is 7,300 feet long. Safety wasn't a concern. The landing spot
picked by the examiner was 1,000 feet from the approach end. I didn't find
it too stressful; however, I am sure the stress level would have been much
greater on a short runway.

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/

"Judy Ruprecht" > wrote in message
...
> At 13:00 31 October 2004, an aspiring private pilot
> outlined the like-a-lawn-dart method of using slips
> to a landing, and asked:
>
> >> 1. Is this the common interpretation of the task...
> >>No drag devices,
> >all
> >> the way to the ground?
>
> Nope. (This from a DE who's administered over 350 private,
> commercial & CFI-G flight tests in 25 years.) I don't
> ask any applicant to perform any maneuver I haven't
> done recently in the same model aircraft, in the same
> conditions and preferably at the same airport used
> for the flight test. On a light- or no-wind day, I
> doubt I could land most gliders as you describe without
> having set up a ridiculously low final approach in
> the first place. (Geez, Louise, I'd flunk myself for
> that!)
>
> >> 2. Have you experienced/how would you deal with what
> >>seems to be a rather
> >> low drag ratio even with a full-rudder slip?
>
> If you mean slipping like crazy on final with minimal
> effect on the glideslope, Yup. And in my case, I quickly
> discovered the joys of situational awareness, well-timed
> S-turns and strict attention to speed control. (eg:
> get past 'Uh-Oh!' and get on with solving the problem.)
> The first three rules of flying are and will ever be'
> Fly the aircraft! Fly the aircraft! and Fly the aircraft!
> (With the implied assumption that you know what's possible/safe
> FOR the aircraft in question IN the extant situation.)
>
>
> Ask your CFI to have a heart-to-heart with the DE.
> If he/she is 'hard over' on slipping all the way to
> the ground irrespective of aircraft and airport concerns,
> find another DE.
>
> Judy
>
>

Andy Blackburn

October 31st 04, 06:09 PM

I must be missing something.

During a BFR a year or so ago I was asked to fly the
aircraft - a Grob 103 - without the benefit of each
of the controls (one at a time!). The no-airbrake landing
worked out fine. Yes you have to set up a low approach
and use slips, but the key thing for successfully executing
the maneuver is to point the nose at the runway threshold
(or just short) and let the speed build up. Higher
speed plus a sideslip produces a fair amount of additional
drag, even on a 'modern' glider. As I remember, we
got up to about 80 knots, leveled out at about 20 feet
and held the slip to bleed off airspeed until just
before the flare. This way you don't have to turn final
at 50 feet to make the landing spot. I'm not fond of
S-turns on final as I know of at least one high-time
pilot who died in spin doing this.

I'd rather practice all of this ahead of time when
I know I have a backup plan rather than having to do
it perfectly the first time in an emergency. Whether
it should be part of a practical exam for a private
ticket is debatable I suppose, but I highly recommend
that all glider pilots practice for jammed controls
every so often.

9B

At 17:54 31 October 2004, Andreas Maurer wrote:
>On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 05:50:43 GMT, 'Roger Worden'
>wrote:
>
>>I'm preparing for my Private test, and in discussing
>>it with the local FAA
>>examiner, he indicated that one item on the test is
>>a landing with no drag
>>devices, using only a turning and forward slips. As
>>he explained it, the
>>task in the PTS is to demonstrate the ability to land
>>totally WITHOUT
>>airbrakes, to simulate a landing wherein the airbrakes
>>have failed.
>
>This requirement is one of the major bull**** things
>I ever had the
>pleasure of reading on RAS. :)
>
>My advice - get some other FAA examiner. This one obviously
>doesn't
>know anything about gliding.
>
>
>>Throughout my training I've practiced many turning
>>slips to FINAL APPROACH
>>(to lose altitude) without airbrakes, but I have always
>>ended the slip and
>>landed normally by using the airbrakes.
>
>I bet that this FAA examiner has never done that either
>in a modern
>glider with an L/D over 30 - otherwise he's know that
>it's going to
>take a runway of *at least* 6.000 ft and a sideslip
>to *very* low
>altitude to be able to land without using the airbrakes.
>
>
>
>
>
>Bye
>Andreas
>

October 31st 04, 07:52 PM

Andreas Maurer wrote:
> I bet that this FAA examiner has never done that either in a modern
> glider with an L/D over 30 - otherwise he's know that it's going to
> take a runway of *at least* 6.000 ft and a sideslip to *very* low
> altitude to be able to land without using the airbrakes.

Considering the L/D is increased by ground effect, even doubled
according to some, you have a point.

But even with an L/D of 1:80, if you sideslip to 1 m off the
ground you'll only float 80 m, about 260ft, from there, and
quite a bit less with a headwind.

Agreed that the precision needed to slip it down that low
is probably too much to ask of someone just about to get their
licence, but it does not sound too crazy as an exercise at
a more experienced level. In case you get it wrong you should
of course be ready to abort and pull the brakes well before
there is any danger of going off the far end.

Cheers CV

Andreas Maurer

October 31st 04, 09:38 PM

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 20:52:15 +0100, CV > wrote:

>But even with an L/D of 1:80, if you sideslip to 1 m off the
>ground you'll only float 80 m, about 260ft, from there, and
>quite a bit less with a headwind.

You are correct, but the problem is not the L/D in ground effect, but
the speed. Minimum safe approach speed is about 50 kts, touchdown with
the tail wheel first in ground effect will happen at maximum at 35 kts
- to bleed off 15 kts in ground effect takes amazingly long - I'd
estimate about 3.000 ft for the ASK-21.

Of course you can put her down with force onto the nose wheel at
higher speeds, but this is probably going to result in an PIO.

>Agreed that the precision needed to slip it down that low
>is probably too much to ask of someone just about to get their
>licence, but it does not sound too crazy as an exercise at
>a more experienced level. In case you get it wrong you should
>of course be ready to abort and pull the brakes well before
>there is any danger of going off the far end.

Been there, done that, using Ka-8 (landing with sideslip only is
possble if the speed is correct), DG-300 and ASK-21. Neither the 300
nor the 21 could be brought down without flaps on our 1800 ft runway,
altough I was low (3 ft) and slow (50 kts) at the beginning of the
runway.

Sideslipping below 50 ft is hazardous - the slightest mistake while
pulling out of the sideslip might result in an unwanted and hard
impact, not to mention the fact that it's hard to judge the ground
clearance of the lower wing tip. And a final glide from 50 ft with a
fictious L/D of 45 will eat up 2250 ft of the runway, even not
counting the fact that you still have to bleed off your speed.

Sorry - landing with sideslip only is an interesting stunt, but
doesn't have a lot to do with safe flying. :)

I think it's percetly sufficient to ask for a sideslip down to 150 ft
and then a normal landing with flaps.

Or does the FAA guy in question also demand to fly without another
primary flight control, say, the elevator, if you want to pass his
test?

Bye
Andreas

Terry Claussen

October 31st 04, 10:56 PM

Judy Ruprecht > wrote in message > Ask your CFI to have a heart-to-heart with the DE.
> If he/she is 'hard over' on slipping all the way to
> the ground irrespective of aircraft and airport concerns,
> find another DE.
>
> Judy
====================================
I agree with Judy.

Terry Claussen
DPEG AZ

Paul Lynch

October 31st 04, 11:20 PM

How about reporting this DPE to the FSDO? There is little quality control
on the DPEs if pilots do not report problems. Just because they do well on
their DPE checkrides with the FAA does not make them a good DPE!

"Terry Claussen" > wrote in message
om...
> Judy Ruprecht > wrote in message > Ask your CFI to
> have a heart-to-heart with the DE.
>> If he/she is 'hard over' on slipping all the way to
>> the ground irrespective of aircraft and airport concerns,
>> find another DE.
>>
>> Judy
> ====================================
> I agree with Judy.
>
> Terry Claussen
> DPEG AZ

Mark Zivley

November 1st 04, 01:48 AM

I'd only "report" him/her if this request persists to the bitter end.
Perhaps it would be good to take some of these posts and share them with
the DE before your meeting and suggest that while it's part of the PTS,
you have concerns about the safety of such a maneuver. Outright
reporting and subsequently ticking him/her off might be a poor move.
Additionally you can suggest that a no spoiler approach is essentially a
maneuver that is only required if you have an in-flight spoiler failure
and that the pre-flight and "positive" checks should find a control hook
up issue. Furthermore, it's an extremely rare failure.

I've only seen this maneuver attempted once and the CFIG who attempted
to do it flew an L-23 the length of a 5000' runway before going for the
brakes and then moderately ground looping at the end of the roll to
avoid the ditch at the end of the property. Previously he'd instructed
in 2-33s. I would not chose to do it myself.

Paul Lynch wrote:
> How about reporting this DPE to the FSDO? There is little quality control
> on the DPEs if pilots do not report problems. Just because they do well on
> their DPE checkrides with the FAA does not make them a good DPE!
>
> "Terry Claussen" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>>Judy Ruprecht > wrote in message > Ask your CFI to
>>have a heart-to-heart with the DE.
>>
>>>If he/she is 'hard over' on slipping all the way to
>>>the ground irrespective of aircraft and airport concerns,
>>>find another DE.
>>>
>>>Judy
>>
>>====================================
>>I agree with Judy.
>>
>>Terry Claussen
>>DPEG AZ
>
>
>

Thomas F. Dixon

November 1st 04, 02:10 AM

I also live in Idaho and had a different examiner than Wayne. I did
my commercial and CFIG check at the Nampa, ID airport, 2,500 asl and
about 4,700' long runway at that time. I did it in a Blanik L13 too.
I had been forewarned and had practiced this with my instructor and
other mentor pilots even before seeing it in the PPG. I was told to
get it stopped in the first third of the runway. I started it on
downwind and was only a few feet above the ground when I crossed the
beginning of the runway. I did not find it too difficult and in fact
the vis. from the back seat was better in a slip. The big head of the
examiner was out of the way.
Tom
Idaho

"Wayne Paul" > wrote in message >...
> I took my practical flight test in an L-13 Blanik and was required to land
> without the use of spoilers.
>
> When I checked the spoilers on the down wind, the examiner informed me that
> they were frozen shut. He also picked a spot on the field where he wanted
> me to land. I started my slip prior to turning base and continued it on
> final making adjustments as necessary to land on the designated spot.
>
> Driggs, Idaho was the location of the examination. The field is a 6,200
> feet MSL and is 7,300 feet long. Safety wasn't a concern. The landing spot
> picked by the examiner was 1,000 feet from the approach end. I didn't find
> it too stressful; however, I am sure the stress level would have been much
> greater on a short runway.
>
> Wayne
> http://www.soaridaho.com/
>
> "

Mark Grubb

November 1st 04, 03:08 AM

CV > wrote in message >...
> Andreas Maurer wrote:
> > ......it's going to
> > take a runway of *at least* 6.000 ft and a sideslip to *very* low
> > altitude to be able to land without using the airbrakes.
>

While it seems a excessive for a private rating, most pilots can train
to safely and repeatedly conduct this maneuver in considerably less
airport than 6000 ft.! I have done it a lot and some of my friends
could do it consistently. Success requires a very high degree of
speed discipline - even in extremely "slipped" attiudes, a very good
understanding of slips and adverse yaw, and a different mindset
regarding pattern altitudes and shapes. One also must slip to very,
very low altitudes - e.g., through the flair. Sounds bad but it is
not really that bad.

Remember that AS-W12 pilots routinely (1000's of flights) slipped a
50:1 glider to a landing in considerably less than this in extreme
conditions including Appalachian ridge days(Schuemann), wild thermal
days in TX (Scott, Greene) and monster wave days in NV (Herold).

I have landed 100's of flights in glass in Tehachapi, CA without drag
devices. These landings were typically over a 30 ft obstacle at
density altitudes > 5000 ft, and ALL stopped in less than 2500 feet.
More than 50 if those were in an AS-W12. Other gliders involved:
AS-K21, AS-W20, AS-W17, G-103, G-102, LS-4, and Caproni (not
recommended!).

Bruce Greeff

November 1st 04, 07:21 AM

Mark Grubb wrote:
> CV > wrote in message >...
>
>>Andreas Maurer wrote:
>>
>>>......it's going to
>>>take a runway of *at least* 6.000 ft and a sideslip to *very* low
>>>altitude to be able to land without using the airbrakes.
>>
>
> While it seems a excessive for a private rating, most pilots can train
> to safely and repeatedly conduct this maneuver in considerably less
> airport than 6000 ft.! I have done it a lot and some of my friends
> could do it consistently. Success requires a very high degree of
> speed discipline - even in extremely "slipped" attiudes, a very good
> understanding of slips and adverse yaw, and a different mindset
> regarding pattern altitudes and shapes. One also must slip to very,
> very low altitudes - e.g., through the flair. Sounds bad but it is
> not really that bad.
>
> Remember that AS-W12 pilots routinely (1000's of flights) slipped a
> 50:1 glider to a landing in considerably less than this in extreme
> conditions including Appalachian ridge days(Schuemann), wild thermal
> days in TX (Scott, Greene) and monster wave days in NV (Herold).
>
> I have landed 100's of flights in glass in Tehachapi, CA without drag
> devices. These landings were typically over a 30 ft obstacle at
> density altitudes > 5000 ft, and ALL stopped in less than 2500 feet.
> More than 50 if those were in an AS-W12. Other gliders involved:
> AS-K21, AS-W20, AS-W17, G-103, G-102, LS-4, and Caproni (not
> recommended!).
I must take issue with that Mark. I am a much less experienced pilot than you,
but let's look at this from my perspective. As safety officer at my club I would
exercise my prerogative of referring anyone who wanted to perform slips into
the flare for any reason to the CFI for review of their permission to fly.

A few comments -
1] I know it can be done, and even reasonably safely.
2] I know it is dangerous to do this in anything with long wings, and we have a
sloped undulating runway with long grass near the runway.
3] Given the remote probability of ever experiencing this I think the standard
way of testing here, is better. Student gets to find airbrakes frozen at some
point in the circuit, and needs to demonstrate decision making, and execution.
(but the landing is carried out normally)
4] Show that you can perform slips, and S-turns and low approaches by all means.
5] Decision making is far more important than demonstrating a dangerous manouever.
6] Experience is less indicative of safety than is attitude, ask someone like JJ
where most of the repair jobs come from.

For what it is worth - My glass experience is restricted to the Std Cirrus and
Grob 103 Twin II. The Cirrus slips if you want her to, but turbulence over the
tail and pitch sensitivity make low slips highly undesirable. The Grob is heavy
and predictable, but roll rate is not exactly electrifying at low speed. In both
cases the extra speed you would be carrying for control would negate any
advantage. Since it does not benefit you, I can't see any justification for
doing something dangerous.

Our club's founder - Dieter Henschell learned to fly in the 1940s. His favorite
demonstration to pupils who insisted on too high approaches was to make a normal
approach in the Blanik and then proceed up the 2km runway with the brakes closed
from around 10m height and 100km/h. All the way reciting in his gentle German
accent, look the speed is X and I am still flying.. Look the speed is now x-5
and I am still flying...
Most students got the point in one. And that was with a Blanik. Tried something
similar with my Cirrus - the only way to get her stopped on tar without brakes
is to be dangerously slow over the numbers 2m up and 80km/h. That is < 10kt
above stall. Eventually touched down tail first - a gentle full stall landing
indicating around 60km/h nearly 400 m later. Work it out, effective L/D is
probably around 70, and I have to lose 15-20km/h - that is a fair amount of
energy. My wingtip on the ground has less than one metre clearance, from a 2m
height I only have <3m clearance, over a length of 7.5m - do the trigonometry
that is a serious cartwheel type impact at a slip angle of less than 21 degrees.
The Cirrus does not seem to lose much in a slip of less than 30 or so degrees -
then there is the fence at 1.2m to consider - what am I achieving, other than to
demonstrate my poor judgment by practicing slips into the flare?

Just because it was standard procedure some years ago, with a glider that had
design faults with inadequate drag controls does not mean it should still be
standard practice. The discussion about spin demonstration in the circuit is an
example. Eventually the BGA dropped this after a number of fatal accidents. Why
do people have to die demonstrating something that is marginally useful, and has
so low probability of happening, relative to the probability of injury
demonstrating it?

Imagine a fighter pilot having to demonstrate a successful ejection at each
flight review. Same question, why on earth would you expect that?

Andreas Maurer

November 1st 04, 02:34 PM

On 31 Oct 2004 19:08:54 -0800, (Mark Grubb) wrote:

>Remember that AS-W12 pilots routinely (1000's of flights) slipped a
>50:1 glider to a landing in considerably less than this in extreme
>conditions including Appalachian ridge days(Schuemann), wild thermal
>days in TX (Scott, Greene) and monster wave days in NV (Herold).

Ah, the ASW-12... :)
Unfortunately I never had the chance to fly one - I would have loved
to try this landing technique. Maybe I gte the chance one day - it's a
pity that my home airfield is only 2.000 ft.

>I have landed 100's of flights in glass in Tehachapi, CA without drag
>devices. These landings were typically over a 30 ft obstacle at
>density altitudes > 5000 ft, and ALL stopped in less than 2500 feet.

How was your landing technique? As far as I know the recommended
procedure was to put her on the main wheel at relatively high speed
and use the wheel brake to stop her in order to avoid the usage of the
brake parachute?

Bye
Andreas

Nyal Williams

November 1st 04, 02:52 PM

Here's a radical idea for the ASW-12. Jettison the
canopy, on the theory that it will then fly as if dive
brakes were open. <grin>

As I recall hearing, the L/D was 28/1 with the drogue
deployed. Are there any still flying? Seems I recall
a concerted effort to remove them from the market in
order to save lives.

At 15:06 01 November 2004, Andreas Maurer wrote:
>On 31 Oct 2004 19:08:54 -0800, (Mark
>Grubb) wrote:
>
>>Remember that AS-W12 pilots routinely (1000's of flights)
>>slipped a
>>50:1 glider to a landing in considerably less than
>>this in extreme
>>conditions including Appalachian ridge days(Schuemann),
>>wild thermal
>>days in TX (Scott, Greene) and monster wave days in
>>NV (Herold).
>
>
>Ah, the ASW-12... :)
>Unfortunately I never had the chance to fly one - I
>would have loved
>to try this landing technique. Maybe I gte the chance
>one day - it's a
>pity that my home airfield is only 2.000 ft.
>
>>I have landed 100's of flights in glass in Tehachapi,
>>CA without drag
>>devices. These landings were typically over a 30 ft
>>obstacle at
>>density altitudes > 5000 ft, and ALL stopped in less
>>>than 2500 feet.
>
>How was your landing technique? As far as I know the
>recommended
>procedure was to put her on the main wheel at relatively
>high speed
>and use the wheel brake to stop her in order to avoid
>the usage of the
>brake parachute?
>
>
>
>Bye
>Andreas
>

For Example John Smith

November 1st 04, 04:39 PM

I was required to do this in a Blanik L-23 for a BFR a few years back. I
picked a target point right at the threshold, held the slip as long as I
dared and watched a lot of airfield go by as I maintained 10-15 ft of
altitude. The float in ground effect was impressive. I tried flying mildly
cross-coordinated to increase drag. About 2/3 of the way down the field and
still at 5-8 ft, I decided to fly the ship onto the ground where I could
ground loop it, if necessary, to keep from hitting the fence and trees at
the end. Fortunately, the ground loop wasn't necessary.
I'm both glad to have had this experience and glad the requirement has been
removed.

Brent

"Roger Worden" > wrote in message
om...
> I'm preparing for my Private test, and in discussing it with the local FAA
> examiner, he indicated that one item on the test is a landing with no drag
> devices, using only a turning and forward slips. As he explained it, the
> task in the PTS is to demonstrate the ability to land totally WITHOUT
> airbrakes, to simulate a landing wherein the airbrakes have failed.
>
> Throughout my training I've practiced many turning slips to FINAL APPROACH
> (to lose altitude) without airbrakes, but I have always ended the slip and
> landed normally by using the airbrakes. In fact, the PTS says "turning
slips
> to LANDING, with and without the use of drag devices". (See the PTS task
> below.) He said this landing does not have to be to a precise point.
>
> R. TASK: SLIPS TO LANDING
> REFERENCES: Soaring Flight Manual, Glider Flight Manual.
> Objective. To determine that the applicant:
> 1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to forward, side, and
turning
> slips to landing, with and without the use of drag devices.
> 2. Recognizes the situation where a slip should be used to land in a
desired
> area.
> 3. Establishes a slip without the use of drag devices.
> 4. Maintains the desired ground track.
> 5. Maintains proper approach attitude.
> 6. Makes smooth, proper, and positive control applications during recovery
> from the slip.
> 7. Touches down smoothly within the designated landing area.
>
>
> Working through this with one of my instructors today (a very stable day
> with absolutely no wind), we had a hard time getting our Blanik L13 to
> descend steeply enough even with a complete, full-rudder slip. Even after
> extending the downwind, widening the pattern, and slipping all the way
from
> the base turn, through the base leg, in the final turn and most of the
> final, we're still too high. We have to resort to using airbrakes or we
> float the entire length of the field. It would seem that we would need to
> extend the downwind extraordinarily, or as another instructor suggested,
> start the pattern uncomfortably low. We already were entering the 45 at
700'
> AGL instead of the usual 1000' .
>
> So two questions, for CFIs or examiners or recent test-takers:
>
> 1. Is this the common interpretation of the task below? No drag devices,
all
> the way to the ground?
>
> 2. Have you experienced/how would you deal with what seems to be a rather
> low drag ratio even with a full-rudder slip?
>
>

Chip Bearden

November 1st 04, 06:35 PM

This discussion--over whether it's more dangerous to practice
something inherently risky or to learn by doing it the first
time--reminds me of checking out as an instructor with a Northeastern
U.S. glider club when I was in graduate school there back in the
1970s. The check pilot had me box the wake in the Blanik and then
asked me to put some slack in the tow rope and take it out gently. I
pulled up a little and then dove slightly to loosen the rope, then
waited for the towplane to climb up while I yawed the glider.

"Now let's put a *lot* of slack in the rope. I'll do the first one."

I watched, fascinated, as the check pilot took us up well over the
towplane, then moved out to the side and dove down until the towrope
disappeared *behind* the glider. We were still aft of the towplane but
I could look out to the side and see the towrope extending past us as
far as I could see.

The proper recovery technique was to stay above and to the side of the
towplane so that as the slack began to come out and you saw the loop
going by you from back to front, you could dive and turn in to match
speeds. The check pilot did this and it actually worked!

I made a couple of tries, the second of which wasn't as bad as the
first. I was *really* happy, though, when it was over. Turns out this
was a standard practical test item required by the local Designated
Examiner (and also high-time glider pilot).

I wouldn't want to be held to it because I can't remember the details,
but I recall hearing years later about a bad accident in that same
area caused by the towrope getting fouled in the elevator or aileron
during such a maneuver.

Some RAS readers must be familiar with this. Is this maneuver still
done? Were there ever any accidents arising from it?

And what's today's thinking about the wisdom of this kind of training?

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"

Chip Bearden

November 1st 04, 06:35 PM

Bill Daniels

November 1st 04, 07:24 PM

There are certainly some things like low altitude spins that are better
approached by teaching spin avoidance. The risks of training are far higher
than any perceived benefit.

Slips to a landing are a slightly different situation IMHO. They are highly
effective and appropriate in low performance/high drag gliders. The problem
is that nowadays, most pilots quickly move to glass.

When a pilot graduates to high performance gliders, different techniques are
required. Landing a 50:1 glider in a small field is a situation where the
spoiler/speed brakes had just better work.

Just what are the chances of dive brake failure? Frozen shut? Very few
glider pilots fly in icing conditions. Forget to connect them? I'd rather
practice assembly checklists and PCC's. If the training is to slip to a
position where the approach can be continued with spoilers, what scenario is
that training for? (Other than the checkride)

There even may be a danger in teaching slips for controlling the approach to
landing. A pilot may subconsciously feel he has a slip available if the
spoilers don't quite do the job and habitually fly high patterns in a
slippery glider until one day he finds that there are really no options
beyond the use of spoilers and pattern adjustments.

Note that I'm not suggesting that slips be removed from the training
syllabus, just that perhaps they should not be taught as a landing aid.
Slips to a landing is just so...20th century.

Bill Daniels

"Chip Bearden" > wrote in message
om...
> This discussion--over whether it's more dangerous to practice
> something inherently risky or to learn by doing it the first
> time--reminds me of checking out as an instructor with a Northeastern
> U.S. glider club when I was in graduate school there back in the
> 1970s. The check pilot had me box the wake in the Blanik and then
> asked me to put some slack in the tow rope and take it out gently. I
> pulled up a little and then dove slightly to loosen the rope, then
> waited for the towplane to climb up while I yawed the glider.
>
> "Now let's put a *lot* of slack in the rope. I'll do the first one."
>
> I watched, fascinated, as the check pilot took us up well over the
> towplane, then moved out to the side and dove down until the towrope
> disappeared *behind* the glider. We were still aft of the towplane but
> I could look out to the side and see the towrope extending past us as
> far as I could see.
>
> The proper recovery technique was to stay above and to the side of the
> towplane so that as the slack began to come out and you saw the loop
> going by you from back to front, you could dive and turn in to match
> speeds. The check pilot did this and it actually worked!
>
> I made a couple of tries, the second of which wasn't as bad as the
> first. I was *really* happy, though, when it was over. Turns out this
> was a standard practical test item required by the local Designated
> Examiner (and also high-time glider pilot).
>
> I wouldn't want to be held to it because I can't remember the details,
> but I recall hearing years later about a bad accident in that same
> area caused by the towrope getting fouled in the elevator or aileron
> during such a maneuver.
>
> Some RAS readers must be familiar with this. Is this maneuver still
> done? Were there ever any accidents arising from it?
>
> And what's today's thinking about the wisdom of this kind of training?
>
> Chip Bearden
> ASW 24 "JB"

Tony Verhulst

November 1st 04, 08:38 PM

> What would you use the slips for if not altitude control
> during landing?

Cross wind correction?

Tony V.
http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/SOARING

Gordon Schubert

November 1st 04, 09:29 PM

At 19:00 01 November 2004, Chip Bearden wrote:
>This discussion--over whether it's more dangerous to
>practice
>something inherently risky or to learn by doing it
>the first
>time--reminds me of checking out as an instructor with
>a Northeastern
>U.S. glider club when I was in graduate school there
>back in the
>1970s. The check pilot had me box the wake in the Blanik
>and then
>asked me to put some slack in the tow rope and take
>it out gently. I
>pulled up a little and then dove slightly to loosen
>the rope, then
>waited for the towplane to climb up while I yawed the
>glider.
>
>'Now let's put a *lot* of slack in the rope. I'll do
>the first one.'
>
>I watched, fascinated, as the check pilot took us up
>well over the
>towplane, then moved out to the side and dove down
>until the towrope
>disappeared *behind* the glider. We were still aft
>of the towplane but
>I could look out to the side and see the towrope extending
>past us as
>far as I could see.
>
>The proper recovery technique was to stay above and
>to the side of the
>towplane so that as the slack began to come out and
>you saw the loop
>going by you from back to front, you could dive and
>turn in to match
>speeds. The check pilot did this and it actually worked!
>
>I made a couple of tries, the second of which wasn't
>as bad as the
>first. I was *really* happy, though, when it was over.
>Turns out this
>was a standard practical test item required by the
>local Designated
>Examiner (and also high-time glider pilot).
>
>I wouldn't want to be held to it because I can't remember
>the details,
>but I recall hearing years later about a bad accident
>in that same
>area caused by the towrope getting fouled in the elevator
>or aileron
>during such a maneuver.
>
>Some RAS readers must be familiar with this. Is this
>maneuver still
>done? Were there ever any accidents arising from it?
>
>And what's today's thinking about the wisdom of this
>kind of training?
>
>Chip Bearden
>ASW 24 'JB'
>

As a student pilot about 3 years ago, I decided to
do a trial membership in a club. I had been flying
in a commercial operation. It was much less expensive,
although I did have to do work at the field as a member.

One of the club's oldest and most experienced instructors
took me up for the first time in their 2-33. We did
some slack rope recovery that scared the crap out of
me. I was used to some slack rope, but he went way
over the edge. Their was so much slack rope that we
were dangerously close to the tow plane and the rope
was hanging way down below us. I was able to recover
from the first exercise with some difficulty. He decided
to do it again, only closer to the tow plane.
Before I knew it, the rope was behind the wing and
I could hear it whizzing over the wing as I was yawed.
I reached for the release and pulled just as the rope
became taught. It snapped and released with 30 feet
of the rope hanging over the canopy.
The instructor said that we could keep on flying, as
there was no noticable damage to the 2-33.
After we landed, we got out and inspected the wing.
The last 1 1/2 feet of the left aileron was badly mangled
and the tow hook was bent sideways.
I felt terrible that I had damaged their 2-33 on my
first flight, but only until I received a phone call
from the president of the club, telling me that it
wasn't my fault and the instructor should never have
gotten me into that position. Needless to say, I never
flew there again and went back to the commercial operation.

That instructor is still there, but the tow pilots
finally realized how dangerous his slack rope recovery
techniques were and they started releasing the tow
plane when he got too close.
GORDY

November 1st 04, 10:48 PM

Todd Pattist wrote:
> BTW, I don't recall doing it in anything other than a
> fairly draggy 2-33. You didn't want to have your nose
> pointed at the towplane tail when the rope came tight so yaw
> cushioned things, and it was a good idea to tell the

Hmmm. I don't follow this. If you yaw you'd be reducing
speed, ie. increasing the speed difference between tug
and glider producing a more violent jerk on the rope
when it came tight. The increased drag while yawing
would contribute to the same effect.
What am I missing ?
CV

Andreas Maurer

November 1st 04, 10:51 PM

On 1 Nov 2004 14:52:53 GMT, Nyal Williams
> wrote:

>Here's a radical idea for the ASW-12. Jettison the
>canopy, on the theory that it will then fly as if dive
>brakes were open. <grin>
>
>As I recall hearing, the L/D was 28/1 with the drogue
>deployed. Are there any still flying? Seems I recall
>a concerted effort to remove them from the market in
>order to save lives.

Afaik by now all 12's have been converted to the 20 flap system with
landing setting.

Sissies. <evil grin>

Honestly: I admire the boldness of the designer and the pilots to
design and fly a glider with an L/D of 50 and no landing flaps in
order to gain about one point of L/D.
Pretty big ego concerning one's flying skills I guess. :)

Bye
Andreas

Eric Greenwell

November 1st 04, 11:46 PM

Todd Pattist wrote:
> "Bill Daniels" > wrote:
>
>
>>Note that I'm not suggesting that slips be removed from the training
>>syllabus, just that perhaps they should not be taught as a landing aid.
>>Slips to a landing is just so...20th century.
>
>
> What would you use the slips for if not altitude control
> during landing? I'm amazed at a proposal to do away with
> teaching the use of this valuable landing tool.

In 5000 hours of soaring, I've had the spoilers freeze shut once. A
brief shower shortly before towing off for what eventually turned into a
wave flight did the trick. I discovered them frozen at 4000' AGL while
descending at the end of the flight, but at 3000 AGL, they unfroze. I
had a tail chute, so a slip would not have been needed, even in this case.

Has anyone else had spoilers freeze shut without flying in clouds, were
it seems like you should be expecting it to happen?

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Atacdad

November 2nd 04, 03:18 AM

I took my PPG practical a little over a week ago in a 2-33. Did a slip to
landing on final (5-6 kts crosswind) with dive-brakes as needed...but then
in a 2-33 a slip is like an anchor. Also did one in the air to track a
heading.

"Slick" > wrote in message ...
>I just took my exam a little over a year ago. All my examiner wanted was
>for
> me to use a full slip during either downwind, base , or final, not all
> three. I did my slip on downwind and he was fine with it as long as I
> kept
> a normal decent and distance from the field. After I turned base I was
> allowed to use spoilers. Of course, that was here in Ohio where I took my
> exam.
> "Roger Worden" > wrote in message
> om...
>> I'm preparing for my Private test, and in discussing it with the local
>> FAA
>> examiner, he indicated that one item on the test is a landing with no
>> drag
>> devices, using only a turning and forward slips. As he explained it, the
>> task in the PTS is to demonstrate the ability to land totally WITHOUT
>> airbrakes, to simulate a landing wherein the airbrakes have failed.
>>
>> Throughout my training I've practiced many turning slips to FINAL
>> APPROACH
>> (to lose altitude) without airbrakes, but I have always ended the slip
>> and
>> landed normally by using the airbrakes. In fact, the PTS says "turning
> slips
>> to LANDING, with and without the use of drag devices". (See the PTS task
>> below.) He said this landing does not have to be to a precise point.
>>
>> R. TASK: SLIPS TO LANDING
>> REFERENCES: Soaring Flight Manual, Glider Flight Manual.
>> Objective. To determine that the applicant:
>> 1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to forward, side, and
> turning
>> slips to landing, with and without the use of drag devices.
>> 2. Recognizes the situation where a slip should be used to land in a
> desired
>> area.
>> 3. Establishes a slip without the use of drag devices.
>> 4. Maintains the desired ground track.
>> 5. Maintains proper approach attitude.
>> 6. Makes smooth, proper, and positive control applications during
>> recovery
>> from the slip.
>> 7. Touches down smoothly within the designated landing area.
>>
>>
>> Working through this with one of my instructors today (a very stable day
>> with absolutely no wind), we had a hard time getting our Blanik L13 to
>> descend steeply enough even with a complete, full-rudder slip. Even after
>> extending the downwind, widening the pattern, and slipping all the way
> from
>> the base turn, through the base leg, in the final turn and most of the
>> final, we're still too high. We have to resort to using airbrakes or we
>> float the entire length of the field. It would seem that we would need to
>> extend the downwind extraordinarily, or as another instructor suggested,
>> start the pattern uncomfortably low. We already were entering the 45 at
> 700'
>> AGL instead of the usual 1000' .
>>
>> So two questions, for CFIs or examiners or recent test-takers:
>>
>> 1. Is this the common interpretation of the task below? No drag devices,
> all
>> the way to the ground?
>>
>> 2. Have you experienced/how would you deal with what seems to be a rather
>> low drag ratio even with a full-rudder slip?
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
> News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
> Newsgroups
> ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Chris Rollings

November 2nd 04, 07:29 AM

Eric,

I've had two cases of not being able to open dive brakes
due to low temperatures. One in a Kestrel 19, where
at 19,000 feet on a cold autumn day in Scotland the
over-centre lock became so stiff I couldn't break it
out, the other in a twin Grob due to water inside the
airbrake box freezing and jamming the mechanism.

Never experienced a problem in a considerable amount
of cloud flying above the freezing level in the UK
- I've never heard of the ice on the wings getting
as far back as the airbrake cut-out. If you needed
to open the brakes in iceing conditions (to prevent
overspeeding) I would expect that after a very short
time it would become impossible to close them.

Chris Rollings
>
>In 5000 hours of soaring, I've had the spoilers freeze
>shut once. A
>brief shower shortly before towing off for what eventually
>turned into a
>wave flight did the trick. I discovered them frozen
>at 4000' AGL while
>descending at the end of the flight, but at 3000 AGL,
>they unfroze. I
>had a tail chute, so a slip would not have been needed,
>even in this case.
>
>Has anyone else had spoilers freeze shut without flying
>in clouds, were
>it seems like you should be expecting it to happen?
>
>
>--
>Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
>
>Eric Greenwell
>Washington State
>USA
>

Chris OCallaghan

November 2nd 04, 11:25 AM

Avoiding the sling shot effect by transferring the elastic recovery of
the rope into a yaw motion of the sailplane rather than an increase in
speed, creating more slack, and introducing another cycle of slack,
boing, slack, boing, slack, boing...

Gary Boggs

November 2nd 04, 04:55 PM

I had mine freeze shut also. It was raining lightly before we took off and
I then went to over 20K in our wave. I was at altitude for quite a long time
and discovered while descending that the spoilers on my Jantar 2A were
completely frozen shut. I tried everything I could to get them open without
success. In the manual it states that the 2A is not approved for slipping.
Our runway is 3000ft long at 600ft msl. Fortunately we usually have quite
a bit of wind here so that helps shorten the landing. I modified my pattern
and had no problems getting it stopped well before the end of the pavement
with the wheel brake.

Gary Boggs

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> Todd Pattist wrote:
> > "Bill Daniels" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Note that I'm not suggesting that slips be removed from the training
> >>syllabus, just that perhaps they should not be taught as a landing aid.
> >>Slips to a landing is just so...20th century.
> >
> >
> > What would you use the slips for if not altitude control
> > during landing? I'm amazed at a proposal to do away with
> > teaching the use of this valuable landing tool.
>
> In 5000 hours of soaring, I've had the spoilers freeze shut once. A
> brief shower shortly before towing off for what eventually turned into a
> wave flight did the trick. I discovered them frozen at 4000' AGL while
> descending at the end of the flight, but at 3000 AGL, they unfroze. I
> had a tail chute, so a slip would not have been needed, even in this case.
>
> Has anyone else had spoilers freeze shut without flying in clouds, were
> it seems like you should be expecting it to happen?
>
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA

Gary Boggs

November 2nd 04, 05:03 PM

Why not dive to match speed of the tug while remaining off to the side so
you will still get the dampening of the yawing effect?

When the slack in the rope is very large, the speed of the glider can get
well below the speed of the tug if you're not careful, resulting in a very
hard jerk when it comes tight. I prefer a combination of these two
techniques if the slack is extreme.

"Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
...
> CV > wrote:
>
> >>You didn't want to have your nose
> >> pointed at the towplane tail when the rope came tight so yaw
> >> cushioned things
> >
> >Hmmm. I don't follow this.
>
> Here is the situation : you are offset from the towplane and
> flying coordinated with your fuselage parallel to the tug -
> the tow hook is attached ahead of the glider's CG. When the
> rope comes tight, the nose of the glider will quickly yaw to
> point towards the tug. This yawing action cushions some of
> the shock on the rope and decreases the likelihood of it
> breaking. If during the dive to accelerate you end up with
> the nose of the glider pointed directly at the tail of the
> tug, there will be no yawing action and the maximum force on
> the rope will be higher.
> Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

Nyal Williams

November 2nd 04, 09:10 PM

There is a rumor around that someone left Mt. Mitchell
wave in N.C. and flew back to Chester S.C. and discovered
on arrival that the brakes (ailerons?) had frozen up
and had to fly around awhile to unfreeze. Have no idea
who it was.

At 08:00 02 November 2004, Chris Rollings wrote:
>Eric,
>
>I've had two cases of not being able to open dive brakes
>due to low temperatures. One in a Kestrel 19, where
>at 19,000 feet on a cold autumn day in Scotland the
>over-centre lock became so stiff I couldn't break it
>out, the other in a twin Grob due to water inside the
>airbrake box freezing and jamming the mechanism.
>
>Never experienced a problem in a considerable amount
>of cloud flying above the freezing level in the UK
>- I've never heard of the ice on the wings getting
>as far back as the airbrake cut-out. If you needed
>to open the brakes in iceing conditions (to prevent
>overspeeding) I would expect that after a very short
>time it would become impossible to close them.
>
>Chris Rollings
>>
>>In 5000 hours of soaring, I've had the spoilers freeze
>>shut once. A
>>brief shower shortly before towing off for what eventually
>>turned into a
>>wave flight did the trick. I discovered them frozen
>>at 4000' AGL while
>>descending at the end of the flight, but at 3000 AGL,
>>they unfroze. I
>>had a tail chute, so a slip would not have been needed,
>>even in this case.
>>
>>Has anyone else had spoilers freeze shut without flying
>>in clouds, were
>>it seems like you should be expecting it to happen?
>>
>>
>>--
>>Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
>>
>>Eric Greenwell
>>Washington State
>>USA
>>
>
>
>
>

Eric Greenwell

November 2nd 04, 11:01 PM

Gary Boggs wrote:
> I had mine freeze shut also. It was raining lightly before we took off and
> I then went to over 20K in our wave. I was at altitude for quite a long time
> and discovered while descending that the spoilers on my Jantar 2A were
> completely frozen shut. I tried everything I could to get them open without
> success. In the manual it states that the 2A is not approved for slipping.
> Our runway is 3000ft long at 600ft msl. Fortunately we usually have quite
> a bit of wind here so that helps shorten the landing. I modified my pattern
> and had no problems getting it stopped well before the end of the pavement
> with the wheel brake.

And, your runway slopes uphill - a huge help.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Gary Boggs

November 3rd 04, 02:29 AM

Well, it's only 30 feet in 3000, but it does make a difference. Many pilots
land short the first few times they fly here. It looks flatter than it is.

Gary Boggs

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> Gary Boggs wrote:
> > I had mine freeze shut also. It was raining lightly before we took off
and
> > I then went to over 20K in our wave. I was at altitude for quite a long
time
> > and discovered while descending that the spoilers on my Jantar 2A were
> > completely frozen shut. I tried everything I could to get them open
without
> > success. In the manual it states that the 2A is not approved for
slipping.
> > Our runway is 3000ft long at 600ft msl. Fortunately we usually have
quite
> > a bit of wind here so that helps shorten the landing. I modified my
pattern
> > and had no problems getting it stopped well before the end of the
pavement
> > with the wheel brake.
>
> And, your runway slopes uphill - a huge help.
>
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA

Roger Worden

November 3rd 04, 04:15 AM

Thanks to all who replied and especially for the link to the designee
bulletin clarifying the intent of the task. I'll be talking with the
examiner soon.

Mark Grubb

November 3rd 04, 05:09 AM

> >As I recall hearing, the L/D was 28/1 with the drogue
> >deployed.

Considerably less. Probably 15:1 with modified chutes (more area than
stock).

I spent several thousand man-hrs bebuilding/restoring S/N 12012 and
flew it for a couple of hundred hours.

Seems I recall
> >a concerted effort to remove them from the market in
> >order to save lives.

To my knowledge, only 1 person got killed - from a spin-in. Not much
to do with the ship as it is docile and very, very honest.

Another pilot slammed in after taking off with elevator disconnected.
Ship was essentially gone from stick forward but pilot only received
moderate damage to ankles / feet. He would have been very dead in a
modern ship.

> Afaik by now all 12's have been converted to the 20 flap system with
> landing setting.
>
> Sissies. <evil grin>

Sure. Flaps only go down about 50 deg and made little difference in
flight path or landing skills. The extra drag was more than
compensated for by the lower landing speed and extra float. Every
little bit helped!
>
>

> Pretty big ego concerning one's flying skills I guess. :)

Most of the pilots that flew them extensively were very conservative,
highly disciplined, albeit highly confident folks (Scott, Schuemann,
Herold, Greene, Smith, Nelson)

Basic landing technique in glass spoilerless:

1) Downwind abeam touchdown at 4-500 ft agl.

2) Speed 50-55 kts and held very closely, even in extreme slips!
Get fast and eat fence at end!

3) Set max-effort slip meaning that rudder is stalled and pedal is
held to
floor by air pressure. Ship rotates 50 degrees and a small amount
of bank
holds heading. May require using adverse yaw to get into this
condition or
slipping one way and then dynamically going the other way to get
into
stable, rudder-stalled slip.

4) Adjust pattern to arrive as low as one can over threshold, holding
55 kts
attitude

5) Hold slip through flair and continue to bleed speed.

6) Kick out slip and do a tail-low wheel landing.

7) Put flaps negative and brake to halt.

One can also slip hard mostly in the turns by rolling to 90 degrees
bank, feeding in full top rudder and pulling g to load wing. Very
effective way to descend from height.

Flaps can be slowly retracted post-flair to set ship on ground.
However, if too fast, you will not be able to land ( do not ask me how
I know!)

The real way to land short is to deploy #1 chute downwind abeam at
70-80 kts. Adjust pattern and point nose at threshold, holding a
minimum of 75 kts. As threshold is cleared, and you are close to
ground, deploy second (tail chute). Ship quits flying immediately and
will stop in 200-300 feet wth minor braking.

This method was used by Schuemann to safely fly X-C on the Appalachian
ridges for more than 2K hours accident-free. However, it is not for
the faint heart for the sloppy. Actions and timing are crucial. Must
be seen/experienced to be appreciated. The movies of this maneuver
are amazing!

While all of this sounds extreme and dangerous, it is most definitely
not. the techniqus were developed by some of the most experienced
analytical and conservative pilots in the sport. As I said
previously, I have actually tried all of these techniques, first at
altitude and then in many gliders to full stop landings. While it is
considerably more difficult than conventional landings, it is not
superhuman nor dangerous. If this were the case, most of the 12's
would be kindling wood and the pilots dead. Neither is the case!
There is a very large amount of empirical evidence in many different
locations in the wildest weather to support this hypothesis!

Armchair, wannabe R.A.S. theorists not withstanding!

Stalling in severe slips results in the nosefalling through and out of
the slip to a wings level recovery with very little effort or altitude
loss. Dragging a wingtip in glass during a Steady-State slip is
essentially impossible as the wingtip is never lower than the main
wheel. These gliders are severely rudder-limited. If the ship touches
down in a slip, it bounces up and straightens itself out (at least for
the '12. Never had it happen in any other ship!)

While I am high-time in power and glider and was flying more than
full-time (7 days /week for many months for many years) when I was
training for the '12, I do not consider myself a super pilot and
several of my less experienced friends were able to consistently land
their 15m / std glass ships spoilerless in less than 2000 ft.

Best, Mark

Eric Greenwell

November 3rd 04, 05:22 AM

Mark Grubb wrote:

> Another pilot slammed in after taking off with elevator disconnected.
> Ship was essentially gone from stick forward but pilot only received
> moderate damage to ankles / feet. He would have been very dead in a
> modern ship.

What was it about the ASW 12 that saved him, compared to modern ships
like the ASW 27, Ventus 2, etc?

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Mark Grubb

November 3rd 04, 06:07 AM

> I must take issue with that Mark. I am a much less experienced pilot than you, but let's look at this from my perspective. As safety officer at my club I would exercise my prerogative of referring anyone who wanted to perform slips into the flare for any reason to the CFI for review of their permission to fly.

Hopefully, your CFI is competent and experienced enough to actually
decide based on real evidence that this is "dangerous". Or, if he
does not have adequate experience in this mode, go to altoitude and
try it? As a CFI,this is what I do when faced with the unknown.

I slip Pawnees through the flair many times per day when towing -
probably 5000+ landings worth. All one has to do is maintain adequate
energy - kind of like most other landings.

> A few comments -
> 1] I know it can be done, and even reasonably safely.

> 2] I know it is dangerous to do this in anything with long wings...

Not true. Remember all those 1000's of documented landings in
AS-W12's in horrendous conditions? The '12 is 19m. Is that not long
winged? The AS-W17 is 20m. i have slipped these to landings several
times. Based on actual experience, it is difficult to keep the wingtip
below the bottom of the main gear in a Steady-State slip in any of
these ships.

Do not believe? Go fly a steady-state slip at altitude and measure
the bank angle. Go get a pile of real DATA! Go fly and judge for
yourself.

While all of this sounds extreme and dangerous, it is most definitely
not. The techniques were developed by some of the most experienced,
analytical and conservative pilots in the sport. As I said
previously, I have actually tried all of these techniques, first at
altitude and then in many gliders to full stop landings. While it is
considerably more difficult than conventional landings, it is not
superhuman nor dangerous. If this were the case, most of the 12's
would be scrap of balsa and glass and the pilots dead. Neither is the
case! There is a very large amount of empirical evidence from many
different locations in the wildest weather to support this theory!

Stalling in severe slips results in the nosefalling through and out of
the slip to a wings level recovery with very little effort or altitude
loss. Dragging a wingtip in glass during a Steady-State slip is
difficult as the wingtip is never lower than the main wheel. These
gliders are severely rudder-limited. If the ship touches down in a
slip, it bounces up and straightens itself out (at least for the '12.
Never had it happen in any other ship!)

While I am high-time in power and glider and was flying more than
full-time (7 days /week for many months, for many years) when I was
training for the '12, I do not consider myself a super pilot and
several of my less experienced friends were able to consistently land
their 15m / std glass ships spoilerless in less than 2000 ft. It
became something to practice so that our skill set and experience was
incresead - a Good Thing.

> 6] Experience is less indicative of safety than is attitude, ask someone like JJ where most of the repair jobs come from.

Heck, ask JJ about the ships HE busted! From that data set, one would
argue that racing and flying X-C was extremely dangerous and thus
should be avoided. He has not quit flying X-C or racing. Neither
have I.

> Our club's founder - Dieter Henschell learned to fly in the 1940s.
His favorite demonstration to pupils who insisted on too high
approaches was to make a normal approach in the Blanik and then
proceed up the 2km runway with the brakes closed from around 10m
height and 100km/h. All the way reciting in his gentle German accent,
look the speed is X and I am still flying.. Look the speed is now x-5
and I am still flying...Most students got the point in one.

What is the point? That a Blanik glides along way with the brakes
closed? What has this got to do with high approaches? You already
established that all modern gliders glide very flat in ground effect.

It is possible to turn downwind abeam the touchdown point at 10,000 ft
AGL (3000 m AGL) in Blaniks, G103, and K21 (among many others) and fly
a normal size pattern by applying full brakes and mantaining
maneuvering speed or higher (a 3:1 glide +/-). What would then be too
high a pattern? 15,000 ft (5000 m) AGL?

I would propose that wafting along at very low speed very close to the
ground exposes you to significant hazard of getting puonded into the
ground by turbulence or falling to the ground when the gust dies or a
thermal breaks loose in front of you. Should your mentor have avodied
this exercise due to these hazards? I have personally seen perhaps
5-10 gliders that were damaged this way.

> What am I achieving, other than to demonstrate my poor judgment by practicing slips into the flare?

That you have additional control and mastery of your aircraft? That
you more fully understand its limitations and therefore its
possibilities? that you have more experience that may one day save
you from the unexpected?

And again, Empirical evidence DOES NOT support your hypothesis that
slipping through the flair or landing via slips is dangerous. I have
watched tow pilots and Ag pilots slip through the flair routinely for
several decades. I have done it myself for several decades and
thousands of landings accident-free.

This real-world DATA.

However, You should certainly Believe and Fly as fits your needs,
skills, mind set, and risk tolerance.

Come to California and we can go fly!

Best, Mark

Bruce Greeff

November 3rd 04, 01:23 PM

Clearly I have a lot to learn here, but I still think such exercises should not
be routine. Too high risk for no tangible benefit.

Will go and experiment though (just not close to the ground).

J.A.M.

November 3rd 04, 03:28 PM

You don't find tangible benefits for slipping in final? In my case it helped
save an outlanding in a mountain area, with only a short field available to
me. It was uphill, with an elevated road just before. Had to get a high
descent rate to clear the obstacle and still have field enough to stop.
Without slipping the glider I think I wouldn't been able to stop in time and
I'd have damaged the plane.
Better to learn how to slip in a controlled environment rather than in a
high stress situation (as an outlanding to a short field).
It can come in handy if you turned to final too high, true that you can
avoid the situation, but then again I prefer having the tools ready just in
case I need them, then work for not needing them. Just my opinion here of
course.

Good landings,
Jose M. Alvarez.

"Bruce Greeff" > escribió en el mensaje
...
> Clearly I have a lot to learn here, but I still think such exercises
should not
> be routine. Too high risk for no tangible benefit.
>
> Will go and experiment though (just not close to the ground).
>

Bruce Greeff

November 3rd 04, 05:27 PM

J.A.M. wrote:
> You don't find tangible benefits for slipping in final? In my case it helped
> save an outlanding in a mountain area, with only a short field available to
> me. It was uphill, with an elevated road just before. Had to get a high
> descent rate to clear the obstacle and still have field enough to stop.
> Without slipping the glider I think I wouldn't been able to stop in time and
> I'd have damaged the plane.
Slipping on final - 100% agreement it is something to learn to do , especially
if you fly XC and may need to land out over obstacles as you have described.

What I am disagreeing with is practising landing with no drag controls other
than side slip, and holding the slip into the flare. Knowing that you can do it
in an emergency is one thing, doing it as a matter of course is not.
> Better to learn how to slip in a controlled environment rather than in a
> high stress situation (as an outlanding to a short field).
Agree - just like I think everyone should be competent at spins. Same principle,
practice away from the hard stuff...

> It can come in handy if you turned to final too high, true that you can
> avoid the situation, but then again I prefer having the tools ready just in
> case I need them, then work for not needing them. Just my opinion here of
> course.
>
Mine is only an opinion too, and maybe an "old woman" one at that.
> Good landings,
> Jose M. Alvarez.
>
> "Bruce Greeff" > escribió en el mensaje
> ...
>
>>Clearly I have a lot to learn here, but I still think such exercises
>
> should not
>
>>be routine. Too high risk for no tangible benefit.
>>
>>Will go and experiment though (just not close to the ground).
>>
>
>
>

[email protected]

November 3rd 04, 05:50 PM

(Chip Bearden) writes:

....

> "Now let's put a *lot* of slack in the rope. I'll do the first one."

> I watched, fascinated, as the check pilot took us up well over the
> towplane, then moved out to the side and dove down until the towrope
> disappeared *behind* the glider. We were still aft of the towplane
> but I could look out to the side and see the towrope extending past
> us as far as I could see.

Was that with shoulder hitches? or a nose hook? With shoulder hitches
you can bend the hook on the outside so it will not release cleanly.

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

Andy Durbin

November 3rd 04, 07:20 PM

Eric Greenwell > wrote in message >...
>
> Has anyone else had spoilers freeze shut without flying in clouds, were
> it seems like you should be expecting it to happen?

I had the ailerons and I think the elevator freeze up on a wave flight
in a Std Jantar many years ago. I broke the controls loose with
increased stick forces and made sure I kept the stick moving a bit
after that. Didn't enter cloud so assume moisture in the control
circuits or control hinges froze.

Andy

Chris OCallaghan

November 3rd 04, 11:54 PM

Always good to hear pilots' real world experiences.

I'll add that most flight manuals warn of spoiler freeze up for both
the reasons cited (mating surfaces and control stiffness) and
recommend ways to mitigate them.

I think this was descibed at length in a thread on the same subject a
year or two ago.

While it's nice to be able to effectively slip a glider (an
increasingly uncommon skill), it's even better if all your controls
work throughout the entire flight. Don't let others lull you into
preflight complacency. Their skills may be greater. I practice no
spoiler approaches regularly (at least a half dozen times a season).
In high performance gliders, I'm only successful about half the time
(that is, I need to pop the spoilers to keep from overshooting). It's
a great excercise, but occasionally humbling.

Mark James Boyd

November 4th 04, 03:27 AM

I haven't tried this manuever myself. I'd be a bit hesitant
due to the airspeed errors in some aircraft in a sideslip, and
the need for excellent airspeed control for ensured success.
Additionally, I suspect the correct airspeed varies enough
with weight that this is another factor to consider, and
is a little beyond the scope of the PPG.

Of course I will try it for fun, but for students I wouldn't
like to have them practicing this solo (when the weight is very different).
I remember trying this in the Katana DA-C1 by not using
flaps, and that the airspeed control needed meant one was at
well less than 1.3 x Vs1...

In article >,
CV > wrote:
>
>Andreas Maurer wrote:
>> I bet that this FAA examiner has never done that either in a modern
>> glider with an L/D over 30 - otherwise he's know that it's going to
>> take a runway of *at least* 6.000 ft and a sideslip to *very* low
>> altitude to be able to land without using the airbrakes.
>
>Considering the L/D is increased by ground effect, even doubled
>according to some, you have a point.
>
>But even with an L/D of 1:80, if you sideslip to 1 m off the
>ground you'll only float 80 m, about 260ft, from there, and
>quite a bit less with a headwind.
>
>Agreed that the precision needed to slip it down that low
>is probably too much to ask of someone just about to get their
>licence, but it does not sound too crazy as an exercise at
>a more experienced level. In case you get it wrong you should
>of course be ready to abort and pull the brakes well before
>there is any danger of going off the far end.
>
>Cheers CV
>

--

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

Tony Verhulst

November 4th 04, 03:10 PM

Mark James Boyd wrote:
> I haven't tried this manuever myself. I'd be a bit hesitant
> due to the airspeed errors in some aircraft in a sideslip, and
> the need for excellent airspeed control for ensured success.

Yeah, I routinely see L23 airspeed errors of -20 kts or more in a full
slip. I emphasize noting the pitch attitude before entering the slip and
maintaining it in the slip. Ignore the ASI.

Tony V.

Bruce Greeff

November 4th 04, 03:46 PM

Tony Verhulst wrote:
> Mark James Boyd wrote:
>
>> I haven't tried this manuever myself. I'd be a bit hesitant
>> due to the airspeed errors in some aircraft in a sideslip, and
>> the need for excellent airspeed control for ensured success.
>
>
> Yeah, I routinely see L23 airspeed errors of -20 kts or more in a full
> slip. I emphasize noting the pitch attitude before entering the slip and
> maintaining it in the slip. Ignore the ASI.
>
> Tony V.
>
Any pot pitot is going to be inaccurate, a 50 deg slip as discussed earlier
means you can only rely on attitude for airspeed.
On my Cirrus anything more than a very modest yaw results in wild airspeed
fluctuations - presumably due to buffeting of the static and the disturbed
airflow over the pot.

One reason why people are suggesting you need extremely good airspeed control
and a little extra speed in case of misjudgement.

OscarCVox

November 4th 04, 10:18 PM

Is it possible to stall the aircraft in a full slip? On the two aircraft I have
tried it (at height of corse) I ran out of back elevator before I was able to
stall it. ASK13 and ASK21

Chris Rowland

November 5th 04, 06:12 PM

On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 08:55:45 -0800, "Gary Boggs" >
wrote:

>I had mine freeze shut also. It was raining lightly before we took off and
>I then went to over 20K in our wave. I was at altitude for quite a long time
>and discovered while descending that the spoilers on my Jantar 2A were
>completely frozen shut. I tried everything I could to get them open without
>success. In the manual it states that the 2A is not approved for slipping.
>Our runway is 3000ft long at 600ft msl. Fortunately we usually have quite
>a bit of wind here so that helps shorten the landing. I modified my pattern
>and had no problems getting it stopped well before the end of the pavement
>with the wheel brake.

Well done! I've a Jantar 2a and pulling this trick off at Aboyne
would be ... interesting. One time when the separate wheel brake is a
good idea.

If anyone is wondering why the Jantar 2A is not approved for slipping,
what seems to happen is that the elevator looses effectiveness -
presumably because it is blanked by the rudder. You start to feed in
aileron and opposite rudder, then find that you have the stick on the
front or back stop to try to control the attitude. Not something to
discover on the approach:-)

Chris

Pete Reinhart

November 6th 04, 12:36 AM

I've got one as well and I'm pretty sure that's the reason it's placarded
against ground launch.
Cheers!, Pete

"Chris Rowland" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 08:55:45 -0800, "Gary Boggs" >
> wrote:
>
> >I had mine freeze shut also. It was raining lightly before we took off
and
> >I then went to over 20K in our wave. I was at altitude for quite a long
time
> >and discovered while descending that the spoilers on my Jantar 2A were
> >completely frozen shut. I tried everything I could to get them open
without
> >success. In the manual it states that the 2A is not approved for
slipping.
> >Our runway is 3000ft long at 600ft msl. Fortunately we usually have
quite
> >a bit of wind here so that helps shorten the landing. I modified my
pattern
> >and had no problems getting it stopped well before the end of the
pavement
> >with the wheel brake.
>
> Well done! I've a Jantar 2a and pulling this trick off at Aboyne
> would be ... interesting. One time when the separate wheel brake is a
> good idea.
>
> If anyone is wondering why the Jantar 2A is not approved for slipping,
> what seems to happen is that the elevator looses effectiveness -
> presumably because it is blanked by the rudder. You start to feed in
> aileron and opposite rudder, then find that you have the stick on the
> front or back stop to try to control the attitude. Not something to
> discover on the approach:-)
>
> Chris
>

Tom Serkowski

November 8th 04, 02:49 AM

Bruce Greeff > wrote in message >...
> What I am disagreeing with is practising landing with no drag controls other
> than side slip, and holding the slip into the flare. Knowing that you can do it
> in an emergency is one thing, doing it as a matter of course is not.

So it was a nice sunny day with no lift here in CO, so I took another
pilot up in the L-13 for some fun. Temp was about 60F and wind down
the runway at around 10 mph. Our airport elevation is 7000' MSL.

Tried a few slips at altitude, and entering at a bit under 50 KIAS the
ship flew very nicely with full rudder and the low wing still well
above the horizon. Stalls were nonevents with a very noticeable
reduction in sound level before the 'break' which involved the nose
going straight forward and a slight drop. Overall, no big deal.

Entered downwind at around 600' and this was actually too low to fly
the pattern in a slip all the way. Used a slip on the turns to base
and final, then a slip the last 150' or so of altitude. Flared just
beyond the approach end, touched a bit farther than I would have with
spoilers and got stopped less than 500' beyond the threshold.

My friend then repeated the performance, again using less than 500' of
runway.

I then decided to turn final at a "normal" height and did some
slipping S-turns. Got to the same flare point as before but with
about 5 knots more airspeed, so flew along sideways as I began the
flare. DIdn't realize how low the tail was until it tapped the ground
and dropped us in a bit sideways. Side load was no worse than some of
my students trying a X-wind landing. We used about 1000' of runway
this time, but I never touched the wheel brake, either - as I was
aiming to stop where we did.

-Tom

Roger Worden

November 9th 04, 04:42 AM

Interesting. There seem to be a couple of significant differences in the
weather conditions between your flights and mine - I wonder how much they
contribute to the drag of the slip and the subsequent float distance. First,
I had zero wind, and in my experience a 10 mph headwind makes a *big*
difference in the rollout distance, and probably cuts short the float as
well. Second, our field elevation is 1500' MSL, so there's a 5500'
difference in the density.

"Tom Serkowski" > wrote in message
om...
>
> So it was a nice sunny day with no lift here in CO, so I took another
> pilot up in the L-13 for some fun. Temp was about 60F and wind down
> the runway at around 10 mph. Our airport elevation is 7000' MSL.
>
> Tried a few slips at altitude, and entering at a bit under 50 KIAS the
> ship flew very nicely with full rudder and the low wing still well
> above the horizon. Stalls were nonevents with a very noticeable
> reduction in sound level before the 'break' which involved the nose
> going straight forward and a slight drop. Overall, no big deal.
>
> Entered downwind at around 600' and this was actually too low to fly
> the pattern in a slip all the way. Used a slip on the turns to base
> and final, then a slip the last 150' or so of altitude. Flared just
> beyond the approach end, touched a bit farther than I would have with
> spoilers and got stopped less than 500' beyond the threshold.
>
> My friend then repeated the performance, again using less than 500' of
> runway.
>
> I then decided to turn final at a "normal" height and did some
> slipping S-turns. Got to the same flare point as before but with
> about 5 knots more airspeed, so flew along sideways as I began the
> flare. DIdn't realize how low the tail was until it tapped the ground
> and dropped us in a bit sideways. Side load was no worse than some of
> my students trying a X-wind landing. We used about 1000' of runway
> this time, but I never touched the wheel brake, either - as I was
> aiming to stop where we did.
>
> -Tom

Chris OCallaghan

November 10th 04, 03:30 PM

Agreed. Just stating the theory in response to a question. Works fine
for chubby gliders. In glass I try to match speeds, then crack the
brakes a little as the rope stretches to keep from being accelerated
and starting a new cycle of slack.

"Gary Boggs" > wrote in message >...
> Why not dive to match speed of the tug while remaining off to the side so
> you will still get the dampening of the yawing effect?
>
> When the slack in the rope is very large, the speed of the glider can get
> well below the speed of the tug if you're not careful, resulting in a very
> hard jerk when it comes tight. I prefer a combination of these two
> techniques if the slack is extreme.
>
>
> "Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
> ...
> > CV > wrote:
> >
> > >>You didn't want to have your nose
> > >> pointed at the towplane tail when the rope came tight so yaw
> > >> cushioned things
> > >
> > >Hmmm. I don't follow this.
> >
> > Here is the situation : you are offset from the towplane and
> > flying coordinated with your fuselage parallel to the tug -
> > the tow hook is attached ahead of the glider's CG. When the
> > rope comes tight, the nose of the glider will quickly yaw to
> > point towards the tug. This yawing action cushions some of
> > the shock on the rope and decreases the likelihood of it
> > breaking. If during the dive to accelerate you end up with
> > the nose of the glider pointed directly at the tail of the
> > tug, there will be no yawing action and the maximum force on
> > the rope will be higher.
> > Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C
> > (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\).

November 11th 04, 09:38 PM

Bruce,

I do not think there have been any fatal accidents in the U.K. where a spin
was deliberately entered below 1,000 ft. If you know different, could you
please tell us about it.

I know of one fatal accident where a spin was deliberately started at about
1,400 ft., this was during instructor training and it is known that recovery
was started too low.

The report on the accident last January where both pilots were killed has
not yet been published. However, it is known that the spin was started
above 1,000 ft.

In practice, some clubs and some instructors never did this low spin entry
exercise; the wording in the BGA Instructors' Manual meant that in fact it
was optional, since it was open to any instructor to judge that not all the
caveats were met.

The relevant wording was:
"As this training progresses, it is necessary to introduce _brief_ spins
where the ground is noticeably close. This is to ensure that the trainee
will take the correct recovery action even when the nose is down and the
ground approaching. A very experienced instructor flying a docile two
seater in ideal conditions may be prepared to initiate a _brief_ spin from
800'. A less docile two seater with a less experienced instructor, or less
than ideal conditions, should raise the minimum height considerably."

Unfortunately, there have been many fatalities in the U.K. from an
inadvertent stall/spin entered below 1,000 ft. The belief was that the low
height spin entry exercise, done correctly under the right conditions (type
of glider, C. of G. position, weather etc. conditions, experience skill and
currency of instructor) would help to reduce the number of these accidents.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.

>
> "Bruce Greeff" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> <snip>
>
> Just because it was standard procedure some years ago, with a glider that
> had design faults with inadequate drag controls does not mean it should
> still be standard practice. The discussion about spin demonstration in
> the circuit is an example. Eventually the BGA dropped this after a
> number of fatal accidents. Why do people have to die demonstrating
> something that is marginally useful, and has so low probability of
> happening, relative to the probability of injury demonstrating it?
>
> Imagine a fighter pilot having to demonstrate a successful ejection at
> each flight review. Same question, why on earth would you expect that?
>