Wave

[Janos Bauer]

9 years after my 300km, yesterday I finally managed to climb a bit
more than 3000m during my first wave flight. Not a big achievement
compared to the "real" wave flights but for me 2005 seems to be a happy
year so far:)

/Janos

[Mark James Boyd]

Janos Bauer > wrote:
>
> 9 years after my 300km, yesterday I finally managed to climb a bit
>more than 3000m during my first wave flight. Not a big achievement
>compared to the "real" wave flights but for me 2005 seems to be a happy
>year so far:)

What in heaven's name is wrong with a 3000m gain? What, it wasn't
a "real" wave flight because you had the motor on?

C'mon, good for you! I hope you get a nice cake! With a
little rotor cloud on it, of course... :)
--

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

[Janos Bauer]

Well it was a real wave but not a classic stable one. The lower part
was so unstable with cumulus clouds that the wave collapsed several
times. There was no classic rotor but a hole in the cumulus clouds
indicating wave activity.
Almost everyone outlanded, some did it twice that day. So I was just
lucky to get the right period:)

/Janos

Mark James Boyd wrote:
> Janos Bauer > wrote:
>
>> 9 years after my 300km, yesterday I finally managed to climb a bit
>>more than 3000m during my first wave flight. Not a big achievement
>>compared to the "real" wave flights but for me 2005 seems to be a happy
>>year so far:)
>
>
> What in heaven's name is wrong with a 3000m gain? What, it wasn't
> a "real" wave flight because you had the motor on?
>
> C'mon, good for you! I hope you get a nice cake! With a
> little rotor cloud on it, of course... :)
> --
>
> ------------+
> Mark J. Boyd

[Robin Birch]

Well that sounds like it was well worth feeling pleased with yourself.

I did my 3000 metres between Christmas and New Year in my first ever
wave flight but it was very stable with obvious bars and once I got
established it was very straight forward. Well, once Chris who I was
flying with had pointed out where he was climbing that is. I was happily
sitting in wave at 4,200 on the ridge feeling more than pleased with
myself already, once he started climbing I beetled over to where he was
and followed him up.

Very well done and congratulations.

Robin (in the UK)

In message >, Janos Bauer
> writes
>
> Well it was a real wave but not a classic stable one. The lower part
>was so unstable with cumulus clouds that the wave collapsed several
>times. There was no classic rotor but a hole in the cumulus clouds
>indicating wave activity.
> Almost everyone outlanded, some did it twice that day. So I was just
>lucky to get the right period:)
>
>/Janos
>
>Mark James Boyd wrote:
>> Janos Bauer > wrote:
>>
>>> 9 years after my 300km, yesterday I finally managed to climb a bit
>>>more than 3000m during my first wave flight. Not a big achievement
>>>compared to the "real" wave flights but for me 2005 seems to be a
>>>happy year so far:)
>> What in heaven's name is wrong with a 3000m gain? What, it wasn't
>> a "real" wave flight because you had the motor on?
>> C'mon, good for you! I hope you get a nice cake! With a
>> little rotor cloud on it, of course... :)
>> --
>> ------------+
>> Mark J. Boyd

--
Robin Birch

[Janos Bauer]

Yesterday was the REAL wave day! On the same airport where I flown on
Monday, five new 5000m and three 3000m were flown. There was a broken
oxygen system, that's why some pilots only climbed up to 4000m. At the
other nearby airport there were also several 5000m climbs. Some planes
did 3 diamond climbs with different pilots!
Even the IS28B2 climbed over 6000m...
So the New Year brought some diamonds for Hungary:)

/Janos


Robin Birch wrote:
> Well that sounds like it was well worth feeling pleased with yourself.
>
> I did my 3000 metres between Christmas and New Year in my first ever
> wave flight but it was very stable with obvious bars and once I got
> established it was very straight forward. Well, once Chris who I was
> flying with had pointed out where he was climbing that is. I was happily
> sitting in wave at 4,200 on the ridge feeling more than pleased with
> myself already, once he started climbing I beetled over to where he was
> and followed him up.
>
> Very well done and congratulations.
>
> Robin (in the UK)
>
> In message >, Janos Bauer
> > writes
>
>>
>> Well it was a real wave but not a classic stable one. The lower part
>> was so unstable with cumulus clouds that the wave collapsed several
>> times. There was no classic rotor but a hole in the cumulus clouds
>> indicating wave activity.
>> Almost everyone outlanded, some did it twice that day. So I was just
>> lucky to get the right period:)
>>
>> /Janos
>>
>> Mark James Boyd wrote:
>>
>>> Janos Bauer > wrote:
>>>
>>>> 9 years after my 300km, yesterday I finally managed to climb a bit
>>>> more than 3000m during my first wave flight. Not a big achievement
>>>> compared to the "real" wave flights but for me 2005 seems to be a
>>>> happy year so far:)
>>>
>>> What in heaven's name is wrong with a 3000m gain? What, it wasn't
>>> a "real" wave flight because you had the motor on?
>>> C'mon, good for you! I hope you get a nice cake! With a
>>> little rotor cloud on it, of course... :)
>>> --
>>> ------------+
>>> Mark J. Boyd
>
>

[Ted Wagner]

Okay ... ignorant but proud pure glider pilot asking here ... what is "idle
thrust"? First cousin of "military intelligence" and "jumbo shrimp"?

"Wayne Paul" > wrote in message
...
>I just received an email containing the following text:
>
> Yesterday, Feb. 13th, at 6:01 am, the pilot of a Boeing 757 west of
> Denver
> made a PIREP with the following comment, " we went from idle thrust to
> FULL
> Power to maintain altitude due to Strong Mountain wave".
>
> This was at 37,000 feet!
>
>

[Ian Molesworth]

The only time a jet engine develops zero thrust is when the fire goes
out. You get complimentary life membership to an exclusive gliding club
if you are on a commercial flight that is still airborne when this
happens.

See "Galunggung "and "all four engines have failed" on google


Ian



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 14/02/2005

[keithw]

Another story of a commercial airliner becoming a glider is the Gimli
Glider that occured in Canada . The Boeing 767 ran out of fuel at
41,000 ft and ended up landing at an old abandoned airport that had
been converted to a drag strip/race track ..While a race was going on
!!!!

IF you have never read this story before take a few minutes and click
on the link below ....its an incredible story !! The Pilot was also
glider pilot and used a side slip on a 767 on final !!


http://www.silhouet.com/motorsport/tracks/gimli.html


--
keithw
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via OziPilots Online [ http://www.OziPilotsOnline.com.au ]
- A website for Australian Pilots regardless of when, why, or what they fly -

[Ted Wagner]

I read that Gimli Glider write-up and was amazed. I knew about the incident
but hadn't seen this detailed (or well written) of an account.

A couple of things jumped out at me:

<snip> using 1.77 pounds/liter as the specific gravity factor. This was the
factor written on the refueler's slip and used on all of the other planes in
Air Canada's fleet. The factor the refuelers and the crew should have used
on the brand new, all-metric 767 was .8 kg/liter of kerosene. </snip>

If my college physics was correct, 1.77 pounds = 0.8 kg. I assume there's a
typo in that paragraph!

<snip> As Pearson began gliding the big bird, Quintal "got busy" in the
manuals looking for procedures for dealing with the loss of both engines.
There were none.. Neither he nor Pearson nor any other 767 pilot had ever
been trained on this contingency </snip>

I nearly fell out of my chair when I read that. The FIRST thing I was taught
in my brief career as a powered flight student was the contingencies of no
engine power from the moment one pushed the throttle forwarded to the moment
one was finished taxiing.

Wow.

2NO


"keithw" > wrote in message
...
>
> Another story of a commercial airliner becoming a glider is the Gimli
> Glider that occured in Canada . The Boeing 767 ran out of fuel at
> 41,000 ft and ended up landing at an old abandoned airport that had
> been converted to a drag strip/race track ..While a race was going on
> !!!!
>
> IF you have never read this story before take a few minutes and click
> on the link below ....its an incredible story !! The Pilot was also
> glider pilot and used a side slip on a 767 on final !!
>
>
> http://www.silhouet.com/motorsport/tracks/gimli.html
>
>
> --
> keithw
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Posted via OziPilots Online [ http://www.OziPilotsOnline.com.au ]
> - A website for Australian Pilots regardless of when, why, or what they
> fly -
>

[Maule Driver]

Ted Wagner wrote:
>
> I nearly fell out of my chair when I read that. The FIRST thing I was taught
> in my brief career as a powered flight student was the contingencies of no
> engine power from the moment one pushed the throttle forwarded to the moment
> one was finished taxiing.
>
Well, that's a single engine recip approach. With multiple turbines,
multiple simultaneous engine failure is pretty difficult to achieve I
guess - unless you screw up the fuel situation.

Perhaps the reliability stats are reflected in the fact that
transoceanic scheduled flight used to be done with 4 engines (707), then
3 (L1011), now 2 (767). That's a pretty strong statement.

[[email protected]]

seagull > writes:

> On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 21:31:40 -0800, "Ted Wagner"
> > wrote:

>>Okay ... ignorant but proud pure glider pilot asking here ... what
>>is "idle thrust"? First cousin of "military intelligence" and "jumbo
>>shrimp"?

> Power levers fully retarded to flight idle. ie: Minimum thrust.

> In lay analogy, coasting along with your foot completely _off_ the
> car's accelerator pedal with the engine idling at min rpm - or
> flying a piston at min throttle setting.

Flight Idle, low power setting, but higher than Ground Idle. Have the
fire go out on an aproach is not a good idea. When you are taxiing it
is only an embaresment, so FI is a few % higher than GI to provide
a better margin, and to compensate some for the ram recovery.

--
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.

[[email protected]]

Maule Driver > writes:

> Ted Wagner wrote:

>> I nearly fell out of my chair when I read that. The FIRST thing I
>> was taught in my brief career as a powered flight student was the
>> contingencies of no engine power from the moment one pushed the
>> throttle forwarded to the moment one was finished taxiing.

> Well, that's a single engine recip approach. With multiple
> turbines, multiple simultaneous engine failure is pretty difficult
> to achieve I guess - unless you screw up the fuel situation.

It has been done with 767s, Airbusteds, P3s and C-130s. It only
takes a small error and then to not check properly. IE, report
fuel loaded in lbs and have the number close to what the crew
expect in Kgs.

--
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.

[Duncan McC]

In article >,
says...
> On 16 Feb 2005 21:42:11 GMT, Ian Molesworth
> > wrote:
>
> >The only time a jet engine develops zero thrust is when the fire goes
> >out.
>
> Don't confuse the poor fellow.
>
> Flight idle as it is referred to on the flight deck in flight or "idle
> thrust" as by our inquirer is min. thrust, never referred to as zero
> thrust or to be confused with same occurring with flameout
> (unintentional) or shutdown (intentional).
>
> Same as piston throttle fully closed isn't a dead cut or engine
> shutdown, but idle rpm, unless you lean cut/close/fully retard the
> mixture, albeit deliberately (shutdown) or indeliberately. (major
> ****up :)
>
> Presumably you know that jet engine power lever settings are referred
> to by reference of percentile of a peak or max. normal op. %, with
> flight idle usually circa 60+%, (shutdown is 0% and the only time a
> jet engine should ordinarily be between static and flight idle % is
> when transitioning during startup or shutdown), whereas much lower
> revving horizontally opposed piston engines as commonly found in light
> aeroplane follow the same RPM display conventions as auto engines.

Sheesh! FFS, like I said to the other bloke, don't confuse the poor
fellow with utterly superfluous bull**** presumably intended only as a
display of your own superior knowledge, which in this case falls flat
as it's not only unnecessary, remember KISS, but completely out of
context to the circumstances of the particular incident provoking the
inquiry. ie: The 757 went from "idle thrust (ie: _flight idle_, an
understood to the initiated and technically immaterial to the lay
reader as they'd get the general gist unless they were illiterate or
completely stupid) to FULL power".

If you want to impress everyone with your undoubted technical acumen,
save it for discussions with the likes of your peers, eg: me, in a
more appropriate forum.

:)

--
Duncan

[Gary Boggs]

I have heard that the Gimli Glider landing sequence was loaded into the
airlines flight simulators for training purposes and that almost no one
could successfully land the plane the way the pilot did. Can anyone confirm
this story?


> wrote in message
...
> Maule Driver > writes:
>
>> Ted Wagner wrote:
>
>>> I nearly fell out of my chair when I read that. The FIRST thing I
>>> was taught in my brief career as a powered flight student was the
>>> contingencies of no engine power from the moment one pushed the
>>> throttle forwarded to the moment one was finished taxiing.
>
>> Well, that's a single engine recip approach. With multiple
>> turbines, multiple simultaneous engine failure is pretty difficult
>> to achieve I guess - unless you screw up the fuel situation.
>
> It has been done with 767s, Airbusteds, P3s and C-130s. It only
> takes a small error and then to not check properly. IE, report
> fuel loaded in lbs and have the number close to what the crew
> expect in Kgs.
>
> --
> 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.

[F.L. Whiteley]

Haven't heard that one, but know someone to ask. The DFW downburst is flown
frequently with the occassional lucky save.

Frank Whiteley

"Gary Boggs" > wrote in message
...
> I have heard that the Gimli Glider landing sequence was loaded into the
> airlines flight simulators for training purposes and that almost no one
> could successfully land the plane the way the pilot did. Can anyone
confirm
> this story?
>
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > Maule Driver > writes:
> >
> >> Ted Wagner wrote:
> >
> >>> I nearly fell out of my chair when I read that. The FIRST thing I
> >>> was taught in my brief career as a powered flight student was the
> >>> contingencies of no engine power from the moment one pushed the
> >>> throttle forwarded to the moment one was finished taxiing.
> >
> >> Well, that's a single engine recip approach. With multiple
> >> turbines, multiple simultaneous engine failure is pretty difficult
> >> to achieve I guess - unless you screw up the fuel situation.
> >
> > It has been done with 767s, Airbusteds, P3s and C-130s. It only
> > takes a small error and then to not check properly. IE, report
> > fuel loaded in lbs and have the number close to what the crew
> > expect in Kgs.
> >
> > --
> > 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.
>
>

[F.L. Whiteley]

D2 (UAL 777 instructor) says "We don't really do the Gimli Glider scenario,
we do have a dual engine failure in the syllabus. I let the students take
all the way to touch down sometimes. Most of them make it."

Frank

"F.L. Whiteley" > wrote in message
...
> Haven't heard that one, but know someone to ask. The DFW downburst is
flown
> frequently with the occassional lucky save.
>
> Frank Whiteley
>
> "Gary Boggs" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I have heard that the Gimli Glider landing sequence was loaded into the
> > airlines flight simulators for training purposes and that almost no one
> > could successfully land the plane the way the pilot did. Can anyone
> confirm
> > this story?
> >
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Maule Driver > writes:
> > >
> > >> Ted Wagner wrote:
> > >
> > >>> I nearly fell out of my chair when I read that. The FIRST thing I
> > >>> was taught in my brief career as a powered flight student was the
> > >>> contingencies of no engine power from the moment one pushed the
> > >>> throttle forwarded to the moment one was finished taxiing.
> > >
> > >> Well, that's a single engine recip approach. With multiple
> > >> turbines, multiple simultaneous engine failure is pretty difficult
> > >> to achieve I guess - unless you screw up the fuel situation.
> > >
> > > It has been done with 767s, Airbusteds, P3s and C-130s. It only
> > > takes a small error and then to not check properly. IE, report
> > > fuel loaded in lbs and have the number close to what the crew
> > > expect in Kgs.
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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.
> >
> >
>
>