Solid state horizons [Archive]

February 20th 05, 01:01 AM

I have used PPCEFIS and found it responds sufficiently quickly and as
accurate as it needs to be for gliding purposes in IMC. It has a
display on a PDA (an iPAQ in my case). The main disadvantage if you
have other gliding software which also runs on the PDA (I didn't at the
time), I think it has to be shut down before you can get the EFIS
running. EFIS does, however, show GPS data as well as the horizon, if
fed with the GPS lead, so you don't lose GPS navigation while using it.
It has a HITS (Highway In The Sky) function too, which I found amusing
to some extent, but not very useful.

The only reliability problem I had was due to my poor installation -
the iPAQ lead was in a place where I could accidentally kick it, which
damaged the connection and lost the attitude data.

This year I plan to be using eGYRO which I have not yet tried. It is a
separate instrument with its own display, horizon/attitude only, has
nothing to do with GPS, and leaves the PDA (if you have one) to display
whatever you want on it at the same time.

Both EFIS and eGYRO come with strong warnings not to use them as the
sole or main instrument for flying in IMC. I have a conventional turn
and slip too.

The reason I wanted either of these was for low current draw combined
with always-on capability. I was able to run a Garmin 89 GPS, PPCEFIS
and the iPAQ all from one battery with about 480 ma total current, so
could use them all the time from a 7AH battery, and the EFIS was always
ready for use. I have no experience of suddenly going into cloud with
an electromechanical artificial horizon and having to wait for it to
get erected - which I have heard requires flying straight and level for
a while - and did not wish to have to try that!

I would be interested in hearing the experience of anyone else.

Chris N.

BTIZ

February 20th 05, 02:34 AM

"Slick" > wrote in message ...
> What is cloud flying?

flying clouds take a little more skill than that required for flying
gliders, balloons or parachutes (squares)... although all require changes in
air temperature to create or maintain lifting characteristics.. flying a
cloud also requires some knowledge of atmospherics for cloud formation.. it
is hard to keep flying a cloud when it looses formation because you as the
pilot took in into an airmass that was not conducive to cloud maintenance.
Landing a cloud reduces the visibility at the runway or local airfield to
zero or near zero conditions... a cloud landing is normally referred to as
fog.

ok... enough of the fun stuff...

Cloud flying is flying an aircraft within a cloud.. in the US, termed IFR,
or IMC (Instrument Flying Rules required, or Instrument Meteorological
Conditions). Not done in US with Gliders..
BT

Stefan

February 20th 05, 10:14 AM

BTIZ wrote:

> Cloud flying is flying an aircraft within a cloud.. in the US, termed IFR,
> or IMC (Instrument Flying Rules required, or Instrument Meteorological
> Conditions). Not done in US with Gliders..

From what I've learnt in this group, cloud flying in gliders can
legally be done in the USA. It's just not popular, probably partly
because it requires a current motor IFR rating.

Stefan

Stefan

February 20th 05, 10:17 AM

Slick wrote:

> What is cloud flying?

Flying within a cloud. Very useful in a country where the cloud base is
usually at 300 ft AGL. Not really necessairy in other countries, but
still fun.

Stefan

Robert Ehrlich

February 22nd 05, 09:23 PM

Robert Danewid wrote:
>
> Hey, hey...
>
> In Sweden we do cloud flying a lot!! But we very seldom use
> horizons. A real glider pilot fly clouds on a T&B and an
> uncompensated vario. That is how we teach people the art of
> cloud flying.
>
> /Robert
>
> basils27 skrev:
> > Has anyone had any experiences, good or bad, with the various solid state
> > horizons on the market. Are they stable, is the response quick enough, are
> > they reliable.
> >
> > (Probably only likely to get answers from UK pilots as the rest don't cloud
> > fly)
> >
> >
> >

As far as I know cloud flying is allowed in England, Sweden, Switzerland and
Poland. Not in France. IIRC in Poland it is something you have to learn for just
getting your licence. As I am in France, I have no answer to the original question.

Stefan

February 22nd 05, 10:52 PM

Robert Ehrlich wrote:

> As far as I know cloud flying is allowed in England, Sweden, Switzerland and
> Poland.

Add Danmark and Germany. There may be still others.

Stefan

Michael Clarke

February 23rd 05, 02:09 PM

I agree with the comments from Chris below, and I am
also intending to upgrade from an eGYRO-PCEFIS to an
eGYRO-3 for the same reasons. If anyone is interested
in making me a sensible offer for the eGYRO-PCEFIS
plus send an e:mail. It includes the original leads
to contect to and power an Ipaq 5XXX and a Garmen Pilot
III (but it only requires the GPS if you want to use
it for navigation as well).

Further information on:

http://www.pcflightsystems.com/images/PCFSPRODUCTS2003.pdf

Mike Clarke

At 01:30 20 February 2005, wrote:
>I have used PPCEFIS and found it responds sufficiently
>quickly and as
>accurate as it needs to be for gliding purposes in
>IMC. It has a
>display on a PDA (an iPAQ in my case). The main disadvantage
>if you
>have other gliding software which also runs on the
>PDA (I didn't at the
>time), I think it has to be shut down before you can
>get the EFIS
>running. EFIS does, however, show GPS data as well
>as the horizon, if
>fed with the GPS lead, so you don't lose GPS navigation
>while using it.
> It has a HITS (Highway In The Sky) function too, which
>I found amusing
>to some extent, but not very useful.
>
>The only reliability problem I had was due to my poor
>installation -
>the iPAQ lead was in a place where I could accidentally
>kick it, which
>damaged the connection and lost the attitude data.
>
>This year I plan to be using eGYRO which I have not
>yet tried. It is a
>separate instrument with its own display, horizon/attitude
>only, has
>nothing to do with GPS, and leaves the PDA (if you
>have one) to display
>whatever you want on it at the same time.
>
>Both EFIS and eGYRO come with strong warnings not to
>use them as the
>sole or main instrument for flying in IMC. I have
>a conventional turn
>and slip too.
>
>The reason I wanted either of these was for low current
>draw combined
>with always-on capability. I was able to run a Garmin
>89 GPS, PPCEFIS
>and the iPAQ all from one battery with about 480 ma
>total current, so
>could use them all the time from a 7AH battery, and
>the EFIS was always
>ready for use. I have no experience of suddenly going
>into cloud with
>an electromechanical artificial horizon and having
>to wait for it to
>get erected - which I have heard requires flying straight
>and level for
>a while - and did not wish to have to try that!
>
>I would be interested in hearing the experience of
>anyone else.
>
>Chris N.
>
>

Gerhard Wesp

February 24th 05, 08:25 AM

Stefan > wrote:
> > As far as I know cloud flying is allowed in England, Sweden, Switzerland and
> > Poland.
>
> Add Danmark and Germany. There may be still others.

Add Austria.

Cheers
-Gerhard
--
Gerhard Wesp o o Tel.: +41 (0) 43 5347636
Bachtobelstrasse 56 | http://www.cosy.sbg.ac.at/~gwesp/
CH-8045 Zuerich \_/ See homepage for email address!

bumper

February 25th 05, 07:54 AM

I just ordered the TruTrak turn and bank from
http://www.oxaero.com/
Under $450 with shipping.

I've flown with the PCflightsystems e-gyro and also the panel page on the
Garmin 196, both will keep you right side up assuming you are comfortable
flying partial panel IMC. Since I don't cloud fly, I figured I'd just use
the 196 for the occasional inadvertent foray into IMC and so sold the e-gyro
to a friend. That was before the last fatal accident near Minden. That one
made me reconsider flying with just the Garmin and no gyros at all.

Anyone experienced with the TruTrak? (now that I've ordered it :c)

bumper

"Michael Clarke" > wrote in
message ...
>I agree with the comments from Chris below, and I am
> also intending to upgrade from an eGYRO-PCEFIS to an
> eGYRO-3 for the same reasons. If anyone is interested
> in making me a sensible offer for the eGYRO-PCEFIS
> plus send an e:mail. It includes the original leads
> to contect to and power an Ipaq 5XXX and a Garmen Pilot
> III (but it only requires the GPS if you want to use
> it for navigation as well).
>
> Further information on:
>
> http://www.pcflightsystems.com/images/PCFSPRODUCTS2003.pdf
>
> Mike Clarke
>
>
> At 01:30 20 February 2005, wrote:
>>I have used PPCEFIS and found it responds sufficiently
>>quickly and as
>>accurate as it needs to be for gliding purposes in
>>IMC. It has a
>>display on a PDA (an iPAQ in my case). The main disadvantage
>>if you
>>have other gliding software which also runs on the
>>PDA (I didn't at the
>>time), I think it has to be shut down before you can
>>get the EFIS
>>running. EFIS does, however, show GPS data as well
>>as the horizon, if
>>fed with the GPS lead, so you don't lose GPS navigation
>>while using it.
>> It has a HITS (Highway In The Sky) function too, which
>>I found amusing
>>to some extent, but not very useful.
>>
>>The only reliability problem I had was due to my poor
>>installation -
>>the iPAQ lead was in a place where I could accidentally
>>kick it, which
>>damaged the connection and lost the attitude data.
>>
>>This year I plan to be using eGYRO which I have not
>>yet tried. It is a
>>separate instrument with its own display, horizon/attitude
>>only, has
>>nothing to do with GPS, and leaves the PDA (if you
>>have one) to display
>>whatever you want on it at the same time.
>>
>>Both EFIS and eGYRO come with strong warnings not to
>>use them as the
>>sole or main instrument for flying in IMC. I have
>>a conventional turn
>>and slip too.
>>
>>The reason I wanted either of these was for low current
>>draw combined
>>with always-on capability. I was able to run a Garmin
>>89 GPS, PPCEFIS
>>and the iPAQ all from one battery with about 480 ma
>>total current, so
>>could use them all the time from a 7AH battery, and
>>the EFIS was always
>>ready for use. I have no experience of suddenly going
>>into cloud with
>>an electromechanical artificial horizon and having
>>to wait for it to
>>get erected - which I have heard requires flying straight
>>and level for
>>a while - and did not wish to have to try that!
>>
>>I would be interested in hearing the experience of
>>anyone else.
>>
>>Chris N.
>>
>>
>
>

[email protected]

February 26th 05, 01:04 AM

Bumper, what is the significance of eGYRO or whatever in the context of
the Minden accident?

Chris N.

bumper

February 26th 05, 03:48 AM

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Bumper, what is the significance of eGYRO or whatever in the context of
> the Minden accident?
>
> Chris N.
>

Sorry, I didn't mean to infer there was a direct connection. The glider that
crashed at Minden had no gyros of any sort, and no installed GPS or data
logger. The pilot did have a portable GPS, but it was not mounted. The pilot
told me he turned it on as needed, so I don't know if it was in the aircraft
or in use at the time of the accident (it was not a Garmin 196, BTW).

Some time prior to this accident, I had been using both an e-gyro (the small
portable one with a row of LEDs) in my glider along with the 196. I had
tested both against the AI in my Mooney and was satisfied they performed
equally well, almost as good as the AI. Easy to return to wings level with
either, though neither provided good pitch info. Pitch isn't all that
important to me (the e-gyro does have pitch indication, but it's insensitive
compared to vario, airspeed, or even altimeter). My understanding is that
when e-gyro's roll is optimized by the factory for glider use, pitch
sensitivity suffers. Anyway, I figured I didn't need both so sold the
e-gyro. After the tragic accident, I reevaluated that decision and decided
I'll be flying with redundant "gyro" systems.

all the best,

bumper

Ramy Yanetz

February 26th 05, 08:31 PM

Can a non IFR pilot successfully use this instrument to fly level in a
cloud?

Ramy

"bumper" > wrote in message
...
>I just ordered the TruTrak turn and bank from
> http://www.oxaero.com/
> Under $450 with shipping.
>
> I've flown with the PCflightsystems e-gyro and also the panel page on the
> Garmin 196, both will keep you right side up assuming you are comfortable
> flying partial panel IMC. Since I don't cloud fly, I figured I'd just use
> the 196 for the occasional inadvertent foray into IMC and so sold the
> e-gyro to a friend. That was before the last fatal accident near Minden.
> That one made me reconsider flying with just the Garmin and no gyros at
> all.
>
> Anyone experienced with the TruTrak? (now that I've ordered it :c)
>
> bumper
>
>
>
> "Michael Clarke" > wrote in
> message ...
>>I agree with the comments from Chris below, and I am
>> also intending to upgrade from an eGYRO-PCEFIS to an
>> eGYRO-3 for the same reasons. If anyone is interested
>> in making me a sensible offer for the eGYRO-PCEFIS
>> plus send an e:mail. It includes the original leads
>> to contect to and power an Ipaq 5XXX and a Garmen Pilot
>> III (but it only requires the GPS if you want to use
>> it for navigation as well).
>>
>> Further information on:
>>
>> http://www.pcflightsystems.com/images/PCFSPRODUCTS2003.pdf
>>
>> Mike Clarke
>>
>>
>> At 01:30 20 February 2005, wrote:
>>>I have used PPCEFIS and found it responds sufficiently
>>>quickly and as
>>>accurate as it needs to be for gliding purposes in
>>>IMC. It has a
>>>display on a PDA (an iPAQ in my case). The main disadvantage
>>>if you
>>>have other gliding software which also runs on the
>>>PDA (I didn't at the
>>>time), I think it has to be shut down before you can
>>>get the EFIS
>>>running. EFIS does, however, show GPS data as well
>>>as the horizon, if
>>>fed with the GPS lead, so you don't lose GPS navigation
>>>while using it.
>>> It has a HITS (Highway In The Sky) function too, which
>>>I found amusing
>>>to some extent, but not very useful.
>>>
>>>The only reliability problem I had was due to my poor
>>>installation -
>>>the iPAQ lead was in a place where I could accidentally
>>>kick it, which
>>>damaged the connection and lost the attitude data.
>>>
>>>This year I plan to be using eGYRO which I have not
>>>yet tried. It is a
>>>separate instrument with its own display, horizon/attitude
>>>only, has
>>>nothing to do with GPS, and leaves the PDA (if you
>>>have one) to display
>>>whatever you want on it at the same time.
>>>
>>>Both EFIS and eGYRO come with strong warnings not to
>>>use them as the
>>>sole or main instrument for flying in IMC. I have
>>>a conventional turn
>>>and slip too.
>>>
>>>The reason I wanted either of these was for low current
>>>draw combined
>>>with always-on capability. I was able to run a Garmin
>>>89 GPS, PPCEFIS
>>>and the iPAQ all from one battery with about 480 ma
>>>total current, so
>>>could use them all the time from a 7AH battery, and
>>>the EFIS was always
>>>ready for use. I have no experience of suddenly going
>>>into cloud with
>>>an electromechanical artificial horizon and having
>>>to wait for it to
>>>get erected - which I have heard requires flying straight
>>>and level for
>>>a while - and did not wish to have to try that!
>>>
>>>I would be interested in hearing the experience of
>>>anyone else.
>>>
>>>Chris N.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Charles Yeates

February 26th 05, 08:35 PM

Theoretically yes but would you want to try without training?

> Can a non IFR pilot successfully use this instrument to fly level in a
> cloud?
>
> Ramy
>

bumper

February 26th 05, 09:41 PM

"Ramy Yanetz" > wrote in message
...
> Can a non IFR pilot successfully use this instrument to fly level in a
> cloud?
>
> Ramy

Ramy,

Maybe. But no way I'd recommend trying it.

Though not current, I have an instrument rated so am aware how easy it is to
get vertigo even with a full IFR panel. It would be very difficult indeed to
fly turbulent IMC with only a needle and ball. A glider makes a nice
instrument platform in smooth air, being relatively stable in roll, pitch is
easy enough to control with airspeed. Throw in some ice or turbulence and
things get more difficult.

That said, no matter how experienced, if a pilot gets in IMC with no horizon
reference at all, benign spirals or spins out the bottom notwithstanding, I
think a pleasant outcome could not be counted on. If a pilot wants to fly in
conditions were inadvertent IMC may occur, I'd suggest first renting a
Cezzna and getting some under hood time. Be sure to include unusual attitude
recovery with partial panel (g).

all the best,

bumper

Mark James Boyd

February 27th 05, 07:11 PM

I've received and given IFR training using only a turn and bank,
inclinometer, and airspeed indicator (needle, ball, and airspeed).
It seems to take quite a bit of training, and then practice
and currency, to do turns successfully even in smooth air.

I've also done it in bumpy air. With a turn-coordinator (which
also has a small amount of roll information) it is near impossible.
With the turn and bank indicator, it is very, very challenging.
I personally would not willingly fly extended zero visibility
in turbulence using just needle, ball and airspeed in a glider
without good terminal velocity limiting controls/characteristics.

I have watched very experienced, but non-current, pilots
end up in high speed spirals while training this. I myself have
popped out of the bottom of turbulent cloud in a spiral in
(carefully selected) draggy gliders and airplanes.

In article >,
Charles Yeates > wrote:
>
>Theoretically yes but would you want to try without training?
>
>> Can a non IFR pilot successfully use this instrument to fly level in a
>> cloud?
>>
>> Ramy
>>
>

--

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

Bill Daniels

February 28th 05, 01:54 AM

"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:42221b7e$1@darkstar...
> I've received and given IFR training using only a turn and bank,
> inclinometer, and airspeed indicator (needle, ball, and airspeed).
> It seems to take quite a bit of training, and then practice
> and currency, to do turns successfully even in smooth air.
>
> I've also done it in bumpy air. With a turn-coordinator (which
> also has a small amount of roll information) it is near impossible.
> With the turn and bank indicator, it is very, very challenging.
> I personally would not willingly fly extended zero visibility
> in turbulence using just needle, ball and airspeed in a glider
> without good terminal velocity limiting controls/characteristics.
>
> I have watched very experienced, but non-current, pilots
> end up in high speed spirals while training this. I myself have
> popped out of the bottom of turbulent cloud in a spiral in
> (carefully selected) draggy gliders and airplanes.
>

Mark, I respect your experience but I've done a lot of needle/ball/airspeed
partial panel work and it seems to me once you get the hang of it, it works
fine - provided it's a real turn and bank and not one of those damned "turn
coordinators".

When I was flying my airplane around the country every month, I did a lot of
single pilot IFR. To make sure I was up to the task, I scheduled an
instrument check ride every 6 months even though I easily had the regulatory
minimum 6 "wet" hours and 6 approaches. You can always learn something new.

I used several CFII's to get a mix of opinions. Even so, they all got bored
flying with me so we started doing the whole check ride partial panel -
holds, approaches, departures, everything. I could shoot an ILS to a 200
ceiling and 1/2 mile visibility anytime.

After a while, I noticed that I was using needle/ball/airspeed for primary
attitude data and the attitude ball as a secondary source. That was a good
thing since I suffered two attitude indicator failures and one vacuum pump
failure under IMC. The NB&A (plus clock and wet compass) were always there
and dead accurate.

Bill Daniels

Mark James Boyd

February 28th 05, 07:20 AM

In article >,
Bill Daniels > wrote:
>
>Mark, I respect your experience but I've done a lot of needle/ball/airspeed
>partial panel work and it seems to me once you get the hang of it, it works
>fine - provided it's a real turn and bank and not one of those damned "turn
>coordinators".

Yes, TCs are not good...

>
>When I was flying my airplane around the country every month, I did a lot of
>single pilot IFR. To make sure I was up to the task, I scheduled an
>instrument check ride every 6 months even though I easily had the regulatory
>minimum 6 "wet" hours and 6 approaches. You can always learn something new.

Yep, good idea, especially if you do a lot of night flying.

>
>I used several CFII's to get a mix of opinions. Even so, they all got bored
>flying with me so we started doing the whole check ride partial panel -
>holds, approaches, departures, everything. I could shoot an ILS to a 200
>ceiling and 1/2 mile visibility anytime.

Into a microburst? :P In smooth air and even mild or perhaps
medium turbulence yes. On the coast here, ILS minimums almost always mean
stable air. From what my airline buddies tell me, what really
gets their attention is when the vis is 1/2 mile or less from
heavy rain or snow. Yikes! One 757/767 captain even told me about
an ILS into 0/0 and a microburst. ACCKKKK!

>
>After a while, I noticed that I was using needle/ball/airspeed for primary
>attitude data and the attitude ball as a secondary source. That was a good
>thing since I suffered two attitude indicator failures and one vacuum pump
>failure under IMC. The NB&A (plus clock and wet compass) were always there
>and dead accurate.

Yep. I had a night IMC vaccuum failure, but fortunately it was
in mostly smooth air. And I had quite recent partial panel
training.

>Bill Daniels

I think I agree with you that partial panel (NB&A) can be done safely
with training in some conditions. Smooth air, or mild and even
perhaps moderate turbulence (with practice) one can fly up into
a cloud and "top" a thermal. And there are places where the "G"
airspace allows pilots to legally practice this. In a medium performance
glider, if one only goes a few hundred feet up into the clouds,
popping out the bottom in a spiral is unlikely to exceed Vne.

On the other hand, I would be quite concerned if I was closed
out while on top of a wave. There was a 2-32 that crashed
with 2 pax under circumstances sounding like this.
Oct 10, 1997 out of Warner Springs. I'd sure love to hear what the
"ocean/atmosphere scientist glider pilot" saw in person that day.
Anybody know who that is?

I don't think the
pilot had a T&B, but I'm honestly not sure it would have made any
difference. IFR in rotor partial panel is a whole different animal.
I was in moderate to severe turbulence at night south of tahoe
IFR once, and it took every ounce of energy to keep the thing upright
(while losing 3000 feet at full power) with the full panel.
Partial panel I think I would have been Mr. Splatt.

Anectdotally I heard that the ATP (maybe Gordon Boettger?)
who did a long downwind wave flight
spent 20 minutes in IMC during the flight, with only NB&A (!!!!)
I sure hope this was all in the smooth wave. The idea of
screwing it up and fighting rotor to stay below Vne is just
bloodcurdling.

I distinctly recall two things I haven't been able to make my body do
while flying. I can't convince my body to fly under wires, and I can't
get it to spin through a cloud deck. I talked to an experienced
acro pilot who spun through a 500 ft thick cloud layer once
intentionally, and he said it was the hardest acro he ever did.
Personally, my hands and feet just won't obey my commands
to try this myself.

I thought maybe if I was caught above a wave that just putting it
in a spin would get me safely through (assuming that velocity
limiting dive brakes or simply flying away from the undercast was
an option). But I know my body just won't do it. How about
bailing out, falling through rotor, and opening low? Well,
Kempton Izuno wrote that being dragged at 25 knots in the wind on
touchdown would probably be lethal.

So what do you do? Maybe eject the canopy and hope that plus the
dive brakes keeps you below Vne?

I don't know. And so far I haven't done 1000km wave flying in the Sierras
in an unpowered glider, so this is all armchair at this point.
I do know that the idea of flying NB&A IMC through turbulent undercast
rotor in a high-performance glider would, at my level of skill,
seem practically suicidal. The pilots who do this have both more skill
and bigger cahones than I do...
--

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

Bill Daniels

February 28th 05, 02:46 PM

"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:4222c622@darkstar...
>
> I think I agree with you that partial panel (NB&A) can be done safely
> with training in some conditions. Smooth air, or mild and even
> perhaps moderate turbulence (with practice) one can fly up into
> a cloud and "top" a thermal. And there are places where the "G"
> airspace allows pilots to legally practice this. In a medium performance
> glider, if one only goes a few hundred feet up into the clouds,
> popping out the bottom in a spiral is unlikely to exceed Vne.
>
> On the other hand, I would be quite concerned if I was closed
> out while on top of a wave. There was a 2-32 that crashed
> with 2 pax under circumstances sounding like this.
> Oct 10, 1997 out of Warner Springs. I'd sure love to hear what the
> "ocean/atmosphere scientist glider pilot" saw in person that day.
> Anybody know who that is?
>
> I don't think the
> pilot had a T&B, but I'm honestly not sure it would have made any
> difference. IFR in rotor partial panel is a whole different animal.
> I was in moderate to severe turbulence at night south of tahoe
> IFR once, and it took every ounce of energy to keep the thing upright
> (while losing 3000 feet at full power) with the full panel.
> Partial panel I think I would have been Mr. Splatt.
>

If you've flown by airline in and out of Denver, you know how turbulent it
gets. Night IFR in winter along the east slope of the Rockies pretty much
is wave rotor. You get hammered. It can be non-stop unusual attitude
recovery. I can remember spending over two hours banging the control stops
trying to keep the blue over the brown while holding over Estes Park.

I think we disagree about partial panel in rough air. It's not unusual for
turbulence to tumble the attitude gyro leaving you on NB&A. When it gets
rough, I transition to partial panel so if the VG goes, I still have
control. For me, NB&A is PRIMARY attitude control in rough air.

And yes, I've hit a downburst on an ILS. It was an embedded thunderstorm
that Omaha Approach didn't tell me about. Full power at Vx just managed to
hold me two dots below glidepath. (That day airborne weather radar looked
very appealing but I didn't have it.)

So, what does all this have to do with Solid State Horizons in gliders? I
agree that some kind of standby attitude indication could be a lifesaver in
a glider - provided the pilot has taken training to use it correctly. My
choice would be a T&B, preferably solid state so it would use less power and
spin up quickly when needed.

A horizon (VG) wouldn't give useful pitch information unless the pitch
display was amplified for the tiny pitch changes that produce large airspeed
changes in gliders. I'd be using airspeed for pitch information anyway. On
the other hand, tiny changes in bank produce large changes in rate of turn
in gliders so a 2 minute T&B would be way too sensitive. Gliders need a one
minute or less turn needle.

These PDA based MEMS ADAHRS gizmos look interesting since you already have
the PDA.

Bill Daniels

Stefan

February 28th 05, 02:55 PM

Bill Daniels wrote:

> It's not unusual for
> turbulence to tumble the attitude gyro leaving you on NB&A.

That's the reason why, here in Switzerland, the needle is required
equipment for cloud flying, whether you have a horizon or not. Flying
safely by needle, ball and airspeed is required skill for safe cloud flying.

Stefan

André Somers

February 28th 05, 03:10 PM

Gerhard Wesp wrote:

> Stefan > wrote:
>> > As far as I know cloud flying is allowed in England, Sweden,
>> > Switzerland and Poland.
>> Add Danmark and Germany. There may be still others.
> Add Austria.
Add Checz Republic.

André

Jancsika

February 28th 05, 03:18 PM

Bill Daniels wrote:
> changes in gliders. I'd be using airspeed for pitch information anyway.

On gliders vario provide a bit more sensitive/reliable indication.

> the other hand, tiny changes in bank produce large changes in rate of turn
> in gliders so a 2 minute T&B would be way too sensitive. Gliders need a one
> minute or less turn needle.

Yes, and speed will make also significant difference. It's not sure
that you can do a 110km/h 1 spoon turn if you can do a 90km/h 1 spoon
turn...
We do instrument training on SF25 Falke and engine rpm will add an
additional variable to this multidimensional game;)

/Jancsika

Andrew Warbrick

February 28th 05, 03:52 PM

At 15:30 28 February 2005, André Somers wrote:
>Gerhard Wesp wrote:
>
>> Stefan wrote:
>>> > As far as I know cloud flying is allowed in England,
>>>>Sweden,
>>> > Switzerland and Poland.
>>> Add Danmark and Germany. There may be still others.
>> Add Austria.
>Add Checz Republic.
>
>André
>

Add Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (presumably
the Isle of Man too?).

Bill Daniels

February 28th 05, 04:00 PM

"Jancsika" > wrote in message
...
> Bill Daniels wrote:
> > changes in gliders. I'd be using airspeed for pitch information anyway.
>
> On gliders vario provide a bit more sensitive/reliable indication.
>
> > the other hand, tiny changes in bank produce large changes in rate of
turn
> > in gliders so a 2 minute T&B would be way too sensitive. Gliders need a
one
> > minute or less turn needle.
>
> Yes, and speed will make also significant difference. It's not sure
> that you can do a 110km/h 1 spoon turn if you can do a 90km/h 1 spoon
> turn...
> We do instrument training on SF25 Falke and engine rpm will add an
> additional variable to this multidimensional game;)
>
> /Jancsika

I think it worthwhile to point out that an instrument ticket is the most
difficult pilot rating to get. Most pilots would agree that it's more
difficult than the Airline Transport Pilot rating. Simply put, it's VERY
technical and requires a superb sense of how an aircraft will respond to
tiny control inputs.

Anything less than 100% proficiency and the safety margins are unacceptable.
Keep that in mind if you are thinking of slapping a T&B in your glider and
going cloud flying.

That said, IF you have the training, proficiency and equipment, and operate
in a part of the world where it is permitted, cloud flying in a glider is
not only very effective, it's also a lot of fun as our non-USA based friends
are pointing out.

In a lot of the world, particularly Central and Eastern Europe, the
prevailing weather conditions means that if your are to be a pilot at all,
flying in clouds will be part of the experience. Their pilot training
reflects this. (Our overseas friends will sometimes be astonished that we
permit night flight without an instrument rating.)

In the USA, we are spoiled with vast areas of "Severe Clear" weather that
persists pretty much year-round. As a consequence, our training for Private
Pilot Glider doesn't address instrument flight at all.

Bill Daniels

[email protected]

February 28th 05, 04:18 PM

basils27 wrote:
> Has anyone had any experiences, good or bad, with the various solid
state
> horizons on the market. Are they stable, is the response quick
enough, are
> they reliable.
>
> (Probably only likely to get answers from UK pilots as the rest don't
cloud
> fly)

Basil,

Please see my website for Solid state horizons. The Manual can be
downloaded and it explains the technology. The system includes a
sensor and a display unit. The Display will show a horizon and a
compensated compass.

www.craggyaero.com

Mark James Boyd

February 28th 05, 04:57 PM

In article >,
Bill Daniels > wrote:
>
>I can remember spending over two hours banging the control stops
>trying to keep the blue over the brown while holding over Estes Park.

Cabin crew crosseyed, passengers leaving with muffled
comments about the captain of the "Vomit Comet",
guys walking by scratching their noses with their middle finger...
:P....had your mask on just to avoid the smell
wafting in from under the door...|,,,,....

>I think we disagree about partial panel in rough air. It's not unusual for
>turbulence to tumble the attitude gyro leaving you on NB&A. When it gets
>rough, I transition to partial panel so if the VG goes, I still have
>control. For me, NB&A is PRIMARY attitude control in rough air.

I think the only part we disagree on is this: I won't willingly
fly IFR in conditions that would tumble an AI, or involve over 60 degrees
of bank. I won't fly this willingly regardless of any instrumentation on the
panel (including a sky pointer). And I especially wouldn't want
to do this in a slick glider that will go right to Vne if I miff it up.
If I had your experience, would I do this? I don't know. And
I'm guessing I never will.

I do know that if I'm ever above wave and undercast closes
below me, I'm not gonna consider it a "normal" procedure to descend
through it...

>
>And yes, I've hit a downburst on an ILS. It was an embedded thunderstorm
>that Omaha Approach didn't tell me about. Full power at Vx just managed to
>hold me two dots below glidepath. (That day airborne weather radar looked
>very appealing but I didn't have it.)

You didn't like it, either, did you?

>So, what does all this have to do with Solid State Horizons in gliders? I
>agree that some kind of standby attitude indication could be a lifesaver in
>a glider - provided the pilot has taken training to use it correctly. My
>choice would be a T&B, preferably solid state so it would use less power and
>spin up quickly when needed.

Yes. Absolutely true. I've been puzzled when seeing some very nice
gliders with nice panels but no tiny T&B. And some of the pilots of these
craft tell me of landing at sunset or smoke/haze or low vis
and getting in (minor) trouble. If I had my own glider I'd
surely put some kind of T&B in it. I dunno the battery draw of these,
which maybe gets back to the idea of solar cells...

>A horizon (VG) wouldn't give useful pitch information unless the pitch
>display was amplified for the tiny pitch changes that produce large airspeed
>changes in gliders. I'd be using airspeed for pitch information anyway. On
>the other hand, tiny changes in bank produce large changes in rate of turn
>in gliders so a 2 minute T&B would be way too sensitive. Gliders need a one
>minute or less turn needle.

Agreed. ASI is so sensitive for pitch that is fine. And a full
attitude indicator, although nice for roll and transitions, is
probably unlikely to make its way into a non-motor glider panel.

>
>These PDA based MEMS ADAHRS gizmos look interesting since you already have
>the PDA.

There are remarkable advances in this stuff, as long as when
the roll rate exceeds 90 deg per second, the software doesn't
barf and reboot, right?

>
>Bill Daniels
>

--

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

Stefan

February 28th 05, 05:40 PM

Mark James Boyd wrote:

> And I especially wouldn't want
> to do this in a slick glider that will go right to Vne if I miff it up.

Here in JAR country, for a glider to become cloud rated, the airbrakes
must keep it below Vne at 45 degrees pitch down. This gives a lot of
room for error. (Consequently, the DG1000 is cloud rated while the Duo
Discus is not, if I recall correctly.)

> surely put some kind of T&B in it. I dunno the battery draw of these,
> which maybe gets back to the idea of solar cells...

It draws some current, but not too much. After all, you don't need to
keep it turned on the whole day.

Stefan

Christer Bergstrom

February 28th 05, 05:52 PM

>On 28 Feb 2005 08:57:10 -0800, (Mark James Boyd) wrote:

>>In article >,
>>Bill Daniels > wrote:
>>

>>A horizon (VG) wouldn't give useful pitch information unless the pitch
>>display was amplified for the tiny pitch changes that produce large airspeed
>>changes in gliders. I'd be using airspeed for pitch information anyway. On
>>the other hand, tiny changes in bank produce large changes in rate of turn
>>in gliders so a 2 minute T&B would be way too sensitive. Gliders need a one
>>minute or less turn needle.
>
>Agreed. ASI is so sensitive for pitch that is fine. And a full
>attitude indicator, although nice for roll and transitions, is
>probably unlikely to make its way into a non-motor glider panel.
>

Hello
If you would rely on ASI for holding correct pitch in an glider equal to
an Bergfalke or swifter, eg. L/D>26, you would be in deep trouble quite
fast. You must use an uncompensated variometer, the ASI is way to slow
to show the small changes in pitch that is necessary to see, if you want
to have a nice ride IMC.

best regards
Christer Bergström
Viker
Sweden

Mike

February 28th 05, 08:45 PM

> if you are thinking of slapping a T&B in your glider and going cloud flying.

Here's my story - don't do what I did:

When I was invulnerable and knew everything, but hadn't
done much, I desperately wanted to go cloud flying in a
glider like the heroes I'd read about who'd gotten diamonds
in thunderstorms. I'd never been in a cloud, never met
anyone who had, never had any sort of formal instruction.
I'd never even been above cloudbase or in a mountain wave,
but I set out to cloud fly.

I read all I could - it was a lot. I had a draggy, but
stable and tough glider that had Vne dive brakes and was
built for cloud flying. I practiced long periods of
hands-off "benign spiral mode" type flight from different
entries. I practiced unusual attitude recovery, including
inverted flight recoveries (more of that self-taught stuff).
I put a T&B in a 2-seater and practiced under the hood with
a trusted friend as safety pilot until I was as comfortable
as I could get.

Finally, I trailered out to some remote uncontrolled
airspace, launched and began the climb to a 5,000 AGL
cloudbase. Cu's were towering 10,000 above their bases, but
there was no precip and no forecast for thunderstorms. As I
entered, lift began to increase. I circled steadily,
carefully trimmed out, as I'd practiced, watching needle,
ball and airspeed like a hawk. I never made any
repositioning or major turn corrections. I never did
anything other than fly the turn as accurately as I could,
holding speed and coordination and eyeing the needle to
adjust the ailerons and keep a steady turn.

Seven thousand feet higher, with sweat dripping from every
pore, I decided to roll out. I have no idea how long this
took, but I did occasionally take the risk of a quick glance
at the vario and recall seeing it pegged, so it couldn't
have been too long. I didn't try to roll out on any
heading, I just brought it back to about best L/D and
straight according to the needle. Apparently it's quite
dark inside a cloud, because as I approached the edge the
sun was so bright my eyes began to tear and I had trouble
seeing the instruments.

Suddenly, I popped out and the sight was magical - I was in
a narrow cloud canyon stretching above and below me for
thousands of feet. I was higher than I'd ever been. For
someone who had never been above cloudbase the emotion, the
relief, the exhilaration was enough to leave a lifelong
impression that still rings strongly in me as I write this.

What I did wasn't very safe, nor smart, but I did my best to
reduce the risk. I did it only the once.

Ramy Yanetz

March 1st 05, 07:45 AM

ok, so what is the general wisdom for non IFR trained pilots who get caught
on top or get sucked into a cloud: get a T&B and try to use it or practice
benign spiral? Did anyone successfully used benign spiral to descend through
a cloud? How benign is it in strong turbulent?

Ramy

"Bill Daniels" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jancsika" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Bill Daniels wrote:
>> > changes in gliders. I'd be using airspeed for pitch information
>> > anyway.
>>
>> On gliders vario provide a bit more sensitive/reliable indication.
>>
>> > the other hand, tiny changes in bank produce large changes in rate of
> turn
>> > in gliders so a 2 minute T&B would be way too sensitive. Gliders need
>> > a
> one
>> > minute or less turn needle.
>>
>> Yes, and speed will make also significant difference. It's not sure
>> that you can do a 110km/h 1 spoon turn if you can do a 90km/h 1 spoon
>> turn...
>> We do instrument training on SF25 Falke and engine rpm will add an
>> additional variable to this multidimensional game;)
>>
>> /Jancsika
>
> I think it worthwhile to point out that an instrument ticket is the most
> difficult pilot rating to get. Most pilots would agree that it's more
> difficult than the Airline Transport Pilot rating. Simply put, it's VERY
> technical and requires a superb sense of how an aircraft will respond to
> tiny control inputs.
>
> Anything less than 100% proficiency and the safety margins are
> unacceptable.
> Keep that in mind if you are thinking of slapping a T&B in your glider and
> going cloud flying.
>
> That said, IF you have the training, proficiency and equipment, and
> operate
> in a part of the world where it is permitted, cloud flying in a glider is
> not only very effective, it's also a lot of fun as our non-USA based
> friends
> are pointing out.
>
> In a lot of the world, particularly Central and Eastern Europe, the
> prevailing weather conditions means that if your are to be a pilot at all,
> flying in clouds will be part of the experience. Their pilot training
> reflects this. (Our overseas friends will sometimes be astonished that we
> permit night flight without an instrument rating.)
>
> In the USA, we are spoiled with vast areas of "Severe Clear" weather that
> persists pretty much year-round. As a consequence, our training for
> Private
> Pilot Glider doesn't address instrument flight at all.
>
> Bill Daniels
>

Mark James Boyd

March 2nd 05, 02:55 AM

LMAO! Change a few words to "lots of IFR time" and
"plenty of experience in clouds" and you'll still get
mostly the same story out of a fair number of pilots...

In article >,
Mike > wrote:
>> if you are thinking of slapping a T&B in your glider and going cloud flying.
>
>Here's my story - don't do what I did:
>
>When I was invulnerable and knew everything, but hadn't
>done much, I desperately wanted to go cloud flying in a
>glider like the heroes I'd read about who'd gotten diamonds
>in thunderstorms. I'd never been in a cloud, never met
>anyone who had, never had any sort of formal instruction.
>I'd never even been above cloudbase or in a mountain wave,
>but I set out to cloud fly.
>
>I read all I could - it was a lot. I had a draggy, but
>stable and tough glider that had Vne dive brakes and was
>built for cloud flying. I practiced long periods of
>hands-off "benign spiral mode" type flight from different
>entries. I practiced unusual attitude recovery, including
>inverted flight recoveries (more of that self-taught stuff).
>I put a T&B in a 2-seater and practiced under the hood with
>a trusted friend as safety pilot until I was as comfortable
>as I could get.
>
>Finally, I trailered out to some remote uncontrolled
>airspace, launched and began the climb to a 5,000 AGL
>cloudbase. Cu's were towering 10,000 above their bases, but
>there was no precip and no forecast for thunderstorms. As I
>entered, lift began to increase. I circled steadily,
>carefully trimmed out, as I'd practiced, watching needle,
>ball and airspeed like a hawk. I never made any
>repositioning or major turn corrections. I never did
>anything other than fly the turn as accurately as I could,
>holding speed and coordination and eyeing the needle to
>adjust the ailerons and keep a steady turn.
>
>Seven thousand feet higher, with sweat dripping from every
>pore, I decided to roll out. I have no idea how long this
>took, but I did occasionally take the risk of a quick glance
>at the vario and recall seeing it pegged, so it couldn't
>have been too long. I didn't try to roll out on any
>heading, I just brought it back to about best L/D and
>straight according to the needle. Apparently it's quite
>dark inside a cloud, because as I approached the edge the
>sun was so bright my eyes began to tear and I had trouble
>seeing the instruments.
>
>Suddenly, I popped out and the sight was magical - I was in
>a narrow cloud canyon stretching above and below me for
>thousands of feet. I was higher than I'd ever been. For
>someone who had never been above cloudbase the emotion, the
>relief, the exhilaration was enough to leave a lifelong
>impression that still rings strongly in me as I write this.
>
>What I did wasn't very safe, nor smart, but I did my best to
>reduce the risk. I did it only the once.
>

--

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