Glider down near Reno - pilot OK

[James D'Andrea]

Apparently went down in high winds while attempting a cross country
wave record.

http://www.krnv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4063969&nav=8faO

[TTaylor at cc.usu.edu]

>From Reno TV Station:

A glider pilot is in the hospital after he was forced to bail-out of
his plane before it broke apart in mid-air.

Sparks police say Eric Larsen took off in a motorized glider from Inyo
County, California sometime Tuesday morning.

Authorities believe he was forced to deploy his parachute and make a
crash landing due to high winds.

The glider crashed near the intersection of Satellite and Laser Drives.
The winds carried the pilot about two miles and he landed in the
Wingfield area. One part of glider's wings were found a mile north of
the crash site.

Larsen was taken by Careflight to Washoe Medical Center with major
injuries to his legs and lower back. He will be in the hospital for a
few days. His family is from San Diego and are on the way to Reno.

[Frank Whiteley]

Preliminary

IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 26XL Make/Model: AS26 Description: ASH-26E A
GLIDER
Date: 11/02/2005 Time: 1740

Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: Serious Mid Air: N
Missing: N
Damage: Substantial

LOCATION
City: SPARKS State: NV Country: US

DESCRIPTION
ACFT, A GLIDER, ON AN IFR WITH ZOA, WAS ATTEMPTING A WORLD DISTANCE
RECORD.
THE ACFT CRASHED IN SPARKS, NEVADA FOR UNKNOWN REASONS. RENO ATCT
SAW
ACFT DESCENDING AND A PARACHUTE DEPLOY. THE ACFT SUSTAINED
SUBSTANTIAL
DAMAGE AND THE ONE POB IS IN SERIOUS CONDITION. SPARKS, NV

INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
# Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 1 Min: 0
Unk:
# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0
Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0
Unk:

WEATHER: NOT REPORTED

OTHER DATA
Activity: Other Phase: Cruise Operation: General Aviation

Departed: UNKN Dep Date: Dep. Time:
Destination: UNKN Flt Plan: UNK Wx
Briefing: U
Last Radio Cont: 17332 392512N/1194442W
Last Clearance: UNKN

FAA FSDO: RENO, NV (WP11) Entry date:
11/03/2005

[Bill Batesole]

Any updates on Erik's condition would be appreciated. Thanks



"James D'Andrea" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Apparently went down in high winds while attempting a cross country
> wave record.
>
> http://www.krnv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4063969&nav=8faO
>

[Kemp]

Erik is resting comfortably, no surgery req. with luck he can go home
in the next few days. He wins the award for being the luckiest guy on
earth (for yesterday). His family members are here, I'll be leaving
later today.

Kemp

Bill Batesole wrote:
> Any updates on Erik's condition would be appreciated. Thanks

[For Example John Smith]

pirep?


"Kemp" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Erik is resting comfortably, no surgery req. with luck he can go home
> in the next few days. He wins the award for being the luckiest guy on
> earth (for yesterday). His family members are here, I'll be leaving
> later today.
>
> Kemp
>
> Bill Batesole wrote:
>> Any updates on Erik's condition would be appreciated. Thanks
>

[Marc Ramsey]

Here's a snippet from a message that came from Stew Crane (SSA Gov, NV),
concerning the accident:

===
In the Mt Rose wave he found himself climbing very rapidly
again, over 1,000fpm and between lenticulars. What he did
not notice due to canopy icing at the back edges of his
canopy was that he was being blown back into cloud due to
the change in wind direction. He did turn on his artificial
horizon when he realized his predicament but, due to
instrument spin up time, it was not enough. He went full IFR
in an instant without a working horizon at altitude and
probably at or above true airspeed redline. Vertigo ensued
and in an instant he felt the wings snap off, no strong stick
forces, just a snap.
===

Marc

[[email protected]]

Marc Ramsey wrote:
> Here's a snippet from a message that came from Stew Crane (SSA Gov, NV),
> concerning the accident:
>
> ===
> In the Mt Rose wave he found himself climbing very rapidly
> again, over 1,000fpm and between lenticulars. What he did
> not notice due to canopy icing at the back edges of his
> canopy was that he was being blown back into cloud due to
> the change in wind direction. He did turn on his artificial
> horizon when he realized his predicament but, due to
> instrument spin up time, it was not enough. He went full IFR
> in an instant without a working horizon at altitude and
> probably at or above true airspeed redline. Vertigo ensued
> and in an instant he felt the wings snap off, no strong stick
> forces, just a snap.
> ===
>
> Marc

[[email protected]]

Marc Ramsey wrote:
> Here's a snippet from a message that came from Stew Crane (SSA Gov, NV),
> concerning the accident:
>
> ===
> In the Mt Rose wave he found himself climbing very rapidly
> again, over 1,000fpm and between lenticulars. What he did
> not notice due to canopy icing at the back edges of his
> canopy was that he was being blown back into cloud due to
> the change in wind direction. He did turn on his artificial
> horizon when he realized his predicament but, due to
> instrument spin up time, it was not enough. He went full IFR
> in an instant without a working horizon at altitude and
> probably at or above true airspeed redline. Vertigo ensued
> and in an instant he felt the wings snap off, no strong stick
> forces, just a snap.
> ===
>
> Marc



http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20051104X01789&key=1

[M B]

I remember reading a series of PASCO Westwind articles
which discussed wave flights. Sergio, Gordon, and
a few other authors. Over the course of the following
year or two, I talked to many pilots about these kinds
of record-breaking attempts.
And several of these pilots made dozens of such flights.

Landing under parachute in high winds, the tradeoff
of an always-on turn and bank vs. battery consumption,
the possibility of getting caught above/between/in
lenticulars, the joke about the glider really just
being a big oxygen bottle with wings, problems of flutter,
ballast freezing, penetration, drinking 'Ensure' for
24 hours before the flight to avoid pooping, exhaustive
planning, 6AM launches, etc....

...all made me think these pilots have more in common
with astronauts than garden-variety pilots like me...

I applaud the efforts of these pilots, who I consider
among the most sophisticated and daring pilots on the
planet.

I am also glad this particular pilot is (relatively)
unharmed and can tell this amazing tale. I will drink
an 'Ensure' today and raise my carton to you! In all
seriousness, cheers and many congratulations to the
pilot on making it through this extraordinary experience!


You are my heroes

Mark J. Boyd

At 17:06 05 November 2005, wrote:
>Marc Ramsey wrote:
>> Here's a snippet from a message that came from Stew
>>Crane (SSA Gov, NV),
>> concerning the accident:
>>
>> ===
>> In the Mt Rose wave he found himself climbing very
>>rapidly
>> again, over 1,000fpm and between lenticulars. What
>>he did
>> not notice due to canopy icing at the back edges of
>>his
>> canopy was that he was being blown back into cloud
>>due to
>> the change in wind direction. He did turn on his artificial
>> horizon when he realized his predicament but, due
>>to
>> instrument spin up time, it was not enough. He went
>>full IFR
>> in an instant without a working horizon at altitude
>>and
>> probably at or above true airspeed redline. Vertigo
>>ensued
>> and in an instant he felt the wings snap off, no strong
>>stick
>> forces, just a snap.
>> ===
>>
>> Marc
>
>
>
>http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20051104X01789&key=1
>
>
Mark J. Boyd

[[email protected]]

these pilots have more in common
> with astronauts than garden-variety pilots like me...
>
> I applaud the efforts of these pilots, who I consider
> among the most sophisticated and daring pilots on the
> planet.
>
>

Right On!

MM

[Ray Roberts]

It's worth noting that a solid state turn and bank instrument is available
that's claimed to give an accurate bank indication 3 seconds after power up,
even if the aircraft is in a turn when it is turned on. It's made by a USA
company called TruTrak (www.trutrakflightsystems.com).
I have one on order, haven't received it yet, but others have commented
favorably on it (Google Trutrak).
I have no commercial connection to this company.
Ray Roberts
Ventus 2cM "Q"

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Marc Ramsey wrote:
>> Here's a snippet from a message that came from Stew Crane (SSA Gov, NV),
>> concerning the accident:
>>
>> ===
>> In the Mt Rose wave he found himself climbing very rapidly
>> again, over 1,000fpm and between lenticulars. What he did
>> not notice due to canopy icing at the back edges of his
>> canopy was that he was being blown back into cloud due to
>> the change in wind direction. He did turn on his artificial
>> horizon when he realized his predicament but, due to
>> instrument spin up time, it was not enough. He went full IFR
>> in an instant without a working horizon at altitude and
>> probably at or above true airspeed redline. Vertigo ensued
>> and in an instant he felt the wings snap off, no strong stick
>> forces, just a snap.
>> ===
>>
>> Marc
>
>
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20051104X01789&key=1
>

[bumper]

I've used the TruTrak through this season and have posted about it here
before. You'll like it! Power consumption is minimal at 150 ma, and as
mentioned, power can be left off as the unit is ready to provide turn data
within 3 seconds of applying power.

It's available from http://www.oxaero.com/TruTrak-TurnAndBank.asp configured
to the preferred 1 minute rate for a glider, for less than $450.

Disclaimer - - no interest in company or dealers.

This thing WITH adequate training, can save your life.

bumper
"Ray Roberts" > wrote in message
...
> It's worth noting that a solid state turn and bank instrument is available
> that's claimed to give an accurate bank indication 3 seconds after power
> up, even if the aircraft is in a turn when it is turned on. It's made by a
> USA company called TruTrak (www.trutrakflightsystems.com).
> I have one on order, haven't received it yet, but others have commented
> favorably on it (Google Trutrak).
> I have no commercial connection to this company.
> Ray Roberts
> Ventus 2cM "Q"
>
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> Marc Ramsey wrote:
>>> Here's a snippet from a message that came from Stew Crane (SSA Gov, NV),
>>> concerning the accident:
>>>
>>> ===
>>> In the Mt Rose wave he found himself climbing very rapidly
>>> again, over 1,000fpm and between lenticulars. What he did
>>> not notice due to canopy icing at the back edges of his
>>> canopy was that he was being blown back into cloud due to
>>> the change in wind direction. He did turn on his artificial
>>> horizon when he realized his predicament but, due to
>>> instrument spin up time, it was not enough. He went full IFR
>>> in an instant without a working horizon at altitude and
>>> probably at or above true airspeed redline. Vertigo ensued
>>> and in an instant he felt the wings snap off, no strong stick
>>> forces, just a snap.
>>> ===
>>>
>>> Marc
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20051104X01789&key=1
>>
>
>

[[email protected]]

What about pitch? Wings don't generally break off because of turning.

[[email protected]]

They commonly come off because of loss of control turning.Pitch is easy
as long as you haven't lost control in a turn due to no idea which way
you are turning.
UH

[bumper]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> They commonly come off because of loss of control turning.Pitch is easy
> as long as you haven't lost control in a turn due to no idea which way
> you are turning.
> UH
>

That's right.

Part of instrument training is flying "partial panel" with selected
instruments failed by covering them. Instructors, being basically devious,
fail the artificial horizon (AI) and make the hapless pilot survive with
turn coordinator (not nearly as good as the TruTrac for this). They even get
you into unusual attitudes and then tell you to save yourself. Great fun.

Bottom line is that the roll axis is most critical, pitch is comparatively
easy, even with the pitot iced up and the ASI inop.

bumper

[Ray Roberts]

As an instrument rated pilot, I find that "partial panel" flying is one of
the IFR skills that can be kept sharp using Microsoft Flight Simulator with
the attitude indicator selected as failed. Much cheaper than practicing it
in an airplane, though for peace of mind I do confirm the skill in the
airplane from time to time.
Ray Roberts
Ventus 2cM "Q"

"bumper" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> They commonly come off because of loss of control turning.Pitch is easy
>> as long as you haven't lost control in a turn due to no idea which way
>> you are turning.
>> UH
>>
>
> That's right.
>
> Part of instrument training is flying "partial panel" with selected
> instruments failed by covering them. Instructors, being basically devious,
> fail the artificial horizon (AI) and make the hapless pilot survive with
> turn coordinator (not nearly as good as the TruTrac for this). They even
> get you into unusual attitudes and then tell you to save yourself. Great
> fun.
>
> Bottom line is that the roll axis is most critical, pitch is comparatively
> easy, even with the pitot iced up and the ASI inop.
>
> bumper
>

[[email protected]]

Don't delude yourself by thinking that going IFC at red line in the
Sierra Wave with just a turn and bank is anything like a Microsoft
flight simulator with a partial panel or an instrument flight in a
small plane with a partial panel and an instructor.

[BTIZ]

needle , ball, airspeed...
the airspeed is your pitch..

BT

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> What about pitch? Wings don't generally break off because of turning.
>

[Greg Arnold]

Please excuse this stupid question from a non-power pilot who knows
little about IFR instruments -- apart from the absence of information
about pitch, is there any difference between the display of the TruTrak
and the display of an artificial horizon?


BTIZ wrote:
> needle , ball, airspeed...
> the airspeed is your pitch..
>
> BT
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>What about pitch? Wings don't generally break off because of turning.
>>
>
>
>

[Bruce Hoult]

In article <KjUbf.17639$i%.17534@fed1read07>,
Greg Arnold > wrote:

> Please excuse this stupid question from a non-power pilot who knows
> little about IFR instruments -- apart from the absence of information
> about pitch, is there any difference between the display of the TruTrak
> and the display of an artificial horizon?

No. An artificial horizon just makes the information easier to
interpret becuase you can see the little aeroplane and the blue sky and
brown ground.

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

[[email protected]]

I would think that would be a yes. Art horizion shows pitch and roll,
turn and bank shows roll and slip/skid only

[bumper]

"Bruce Hoult" > wrote in message news:bruce-
>
> No. An artificial horizon just makes the information easier to
> interpret becuase you can see the little aeroplane and the blue sky and
> brown ground.
>
> --
> Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
> Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

Actually, the TruTrac display is more similar to an artificial horizon than
it is to a turn coordinator or needle and ball. The TruTrac has blue sky /
brown earth and a pictoral airplane (like a turn coordinator). When banked
over, the little airplane stays stationary and the horizon line rotates so
that it mimics the real horizon outside. It is actually a very intuitive
display to fly. I find it easier than a TC or needle and ball.

bumper

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >, "bumper" >
wrote:

> "Bruce Hoult" > wrote in message news:bruce-
> >
> > No. An artificial horizon just makes the information easier to
> > interpret becuase you can see the little aeroplane and the blue sky and
> > brown ground.
> >
> > --
> > Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
> > Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------
>
> Actually, the TruTrac display is more similar to an artificial horizon than
> it is to a turn coordinator or needle and ball. The TruTrac has blue sky /
> brown earth and a pictoral airplane (like a turn coordinator). When banked
> over, the little airplane stays stationary and the horizon line rotates so
> that it mimics the real horizon outside. It is actually a very intuitive
> display to fly. I find it easier than a TC or needle and ball.

Ohh, that's not bad.

And at only a little over twice the price, their ADI migth be worth it
too, if it's sensitive enough in pitch for a glider.

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

[bumper]

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
>>Don't delude yourself by thinking that going IFC at red line in the
>>Sierra Wave with just a turn and bank is anything like a Microsoft
>>flight simulator with a partial panel or an instrument flight in a
>>small plane with a partial panel and an instructor.
>
> About once or twice a year, I find myself in the happy
> situation of being at the end of a flight and having 10,000'
> or more to kill off before landing. About 5 times I have
> used this altitude to try the benign spiral mode in my
> Ventus. Full trim back, full negative flaps, brakes fully
> open and hands and feet off the controls seems to be
> reasonably balanced. I've entered at speeds up to 90 knots,
> and have always lost 8,000 or more before having to take
> control for landing. I've never seen excess G's, but I've
> never been in extreme wave conditions during these tests and
> I've never tried this by entering from extreme high speeds
> as one might be experiencing attempting to move out from IMC
> wave conditions. I have seen some 1/2- 1.5 g excursions,
> but bank has always remained within 45 degrees.
>
> I wonder if anyone else has tried this in a modern glider
> and wants to report their experience.
> --
> T o d d P a t t i s t - "WH" Ventus C
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

I'd not want to rely on a benign spiral or spinning to exit IMC.

Spinning might get you safely through a cloud deck, if the spin is initiated
before going IMC and the ship will stay in a spin. I haven't tried spinning
my 26e, as the POH doesn't allow it - - thus it probably stays in a spin
nicely. Recovering from the spin might be less nice. Trying to enter a spin
after going IMC and with no gyro reference would be a crap-shoot - - how do
you initiate a spin when you don't know which way is which way?

I'd hate to rely on a benign spiral if there was anything but glass smooth
air. The few times I've tried a benign spiral, it didn't stay benign for
long.

bumper

[5Z]

I've tried benign spiral in my '26E and with gear down, spoilers open
and flaps at zero, it pretty much behaved nicely.

HOWEVER, this was always done from speeds below 100 KIAS.

I suspect Erik was pushing VNE just before getting engulfed, as he may
have been trying to outrun it. At these speeds, there's no time to
stabilize into the benign spiral. A slight twitch of the wrist could
be all it takes to change airspeed +/- 20-30 knots.

I might try the spiral if a cloud deck closed under me and I had time
to establish it. But I think these wave flights are truly pushing the
limits of aircraft and pilot. Simple things you and I might try could
result in nasty consequences.

MB has it right, these guys are really pushing the limits just as the
X-plane programs of the early 1950's.

-Tom

[Raphael Warshaw]

Todd:

Cindy and Marty at Caracole have demonstrated the benign spiral to me in
both the K-21 and the Duo-Discus. It works in my LAK-17 (15m) at zero flap
with the trim 1/3 aft (wheel in or out) although, like you, I've never tried
it from near redline or from a spiral dive. It needs to be practiced, both
to see that it works in your airplane and, recurrently, so that you really
do (hopefully) stay off the controls in an actual emergency.

Caracole routinely performs the benign spiral as a training exercise, so
that their students and BFR candidates can experience it. Perhaps either
Cindy or Marty could be enticed into joining this thread as they know much
more about this and wave flying in general than I do and have given
considerable thought to emergency procedures. They provide serious mountain
wave training BTW, IMHO a VERY good idea before venturing into the awesome
world of the wave.

Raphael Warshaw
1LK




"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
>>Don't delude yourself by thinking that going IFC at red line in the
>>Sierra Wave with just a turn and bank is anything like a Microsoft
>>flight simulator with a partial panel or an instrument flight in a
>>small plane with a partial panel and an instructor.
>
> About once or twice a year, I find myself in the happy
> situation of being at the end of a flight and having 10,000'
> or more to kill off before landing. About 5 times I have
> used this altitude to try the benign spiral mode in my
> Ventus. Full trim back, full negative flaps, brakes fully
> open and hands and feet off the controls seems to be
> reasonably balanced. I've entered at speeds up to 90 knots,
> and have always lost 8,000 or more before having to take
> control for landing. I've never seen excess G's, but I've
> never been in extreme wave conditions during these tests and
> I've never tried this by entering from extreme high speeds
> as one might be experiencing attempting to move out from IMC
> wave conditions. I have seen some 1/2- 1.5 g excursions,
> but bank has always remained within 45 degrees.
>
> I wonder if anyone else has tried this in a modern glider
> and wants to report their experience.
> --
> T o d d P a t t i s t - "WH" Ventus C
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

[Chuck Griswold]

At 09:12 08 November 2005, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>In article , 'bumper'
>wrote:
>
>> 'Bruce Hoult' wrote in message news:bruce-
>> >
>> > No. An artificial horizon just makes the information
>>>easier to
>> > interpret becuase you can see the little aeroplane
>>>and the blue sky
a>
>Ohh, that's not bad.
>
>And at only a little over twice the price, their ADI
>migth be worth it
>too, if it's sensitive enough in pitch for a glider.
>
>--
>Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
>Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------
I find it hard to believe that any AI would have saved
our intrepid pilot
from pulling the wings off. Like most of the glider
panels that I have
seen, room for a 3 inch instrument is most likely out
of the question and
the 2 inch verity would give you enough information
to get out of a cloud
if you were at thermaling speeds, not redline. I’m
sure most of you have
been close to redline in VFR even with instant feedback
you still were
very smooth on the stick. Now put yourself in his
shoes…… Stay out of
the clouds.

This is one thing that I would NOT recommend practicing.
Chuck

[Richard Brisbourne]

wrote:

> What about pitch? Wings don't generally break off because of turning.

Oh yes they do.

The classic way of "losing it" in cloud without instruments is to get into a
turn (which is going to happen anyway- try letting go of the stick and
watch it happen); at constant trim the speed goes up (which is why we trim
back in thermals). Pulling back on the stick simply puts you into an
ever-tightening spiral dive; the only way out is to straighten up.....- but
without instruments you don't know which way you are turning.

Anyone who has flown in cloud on partial panel will tell you that if you are
trimmed out and can hold the wings level or at a steady, moderate angle of
bank the asi needs very little attention.
--
Real name is richard

[Gerhard Wesp]

wrote:
> turn and bank shows roll and slip/skid only

AFAIK, T/B shows the yaw rate, i.e., the angular velocity of the
aircraft about the yaw axis. In some installations, the axis may be a
bit skewed to also include a little of the pitch rate.

Now for any stationary turn, there is an obvious correlation between the
yaw rate and the bank angle. BUT, they are not identical for dynamic
manoeuvres. E.g., in an absolutely precisely flown 360-degree roll, there
is no yaw rate at all while bank angle goes through the entire range.

-Gerhard
--
Gerhard Wesp
Zuerich, Switzerland

[bagmaker]

pardon my newbie ignorance, but -why not check a compass? If not turning and still flying, decending safely shouldnt be out of the question.
Having said that, we in Oz arent permitted cloud flying (bless the lucky poms, though) and although I have ventured into what looked, sounded, felt and smelt like cloud, it wasnt, because that would be illegal here! I was VERY nervous doing it, with that simple lack of vision, and can understand how easily the accident would occur if the pilot was also at the extremes of speed & altitude already.
Is it possible to get a first hand account from the lucky guy and post it for us?

Damn the gravity, Wayne

[Guy Acheson]

I have some experience with the benign spiral mode.
My previous sailplane was a Grob 104, Speed Astir.
The benign spiral mode was in the pilot's handbook.
It saved my bacon two times where clouds just reached
out and grabbed me. Very scarey when you can't see
anything and your inner ear is giving you all kinds
of bizare information. Very, very hard to keep my
hands and feet off of the controls.

My current sailplane is an LS8 and I can tell you that
the benign spiral mode does not exist. This aircraft
will overspeed and overbank no matter how it is trimmed
if you keep your hands and feet off of the controls.

My message is that you must practice this manuever
many times in various configurations with your particular
aircraft before you should even consider it as a possibility.

For those of you who do not understand how the Tru-trak
would allow you to recover from a death spiral, please
get some partial panel IFR training. The recovery
is the same in all aircraft I have trained in; level
the wings FIRST (this is what the Tru-trak will allow
you to do quickly) and then reduce the airspeed. If
you try to pull the nose up while in a bank you will
only increase the G loads very rapidly and put yourself
in an accelerated stall if you don't break the plane
first.

This is my two cents.

Guy Acheson, 'DDS'
At 16:48 08 November 2005, Raphael Warshaw wrote:
>Todd:
>
>Cindy and Marty at Caracole have demonstrated the benign
>spiral to me in
>both the K-21 and the Duo-Discus. It works in my LAK-17
>(15m) at zero flap
>with the trim 1/3 aft (wheel in or out) although, like
>you, I've never tried
>it from near redline or from a spiral dive. It needs
>to be practiced, both
>to see that it works in your airplane and, recurrently,
>so that you really
>do (hopefully) stay off the controls in an actual emergency.
>
>Caracole routinely performs the benign spiral as a
>training exercise, so
>that their students and BFR candidates can experience
>it. Perhaps either
>Cindy or Marty could be enticed into joining this thread
>as they know much
>more about this and wave flying in general than I do
>and have given
>considerable thought to emergency procedures. They
>provide serious mountain
>wave training BTW, IMHO a VERY good idea before venturing
>into the awesome
>world of the wave.
>
>Raphael Warshaw
>1LK
>
>
>
>
>'T o d d P a t t i s t' wrote in message
...
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Don't delude yourself by thinking that going IFC at
>>>red line in the
>>>Sierra Wave with just a turn and bank is anything like
>>>a Microsoft
>>>flight simulator with a partial panel or an instrument
>>>flight in a
>>>small plane with a partial panel and an instructor.
>>
>> About once or twice a year, I find myself in the happy
>> situation of being at the end of a flight and having
>>10,000'
>> or more to kill off before landing. About 5 times
>>I have
>> used this altitude to try the benign spiral mode in
>>my
>> Ventus. Full trim back, full negative flaps, brakes
>>fully
>> open and hands and feet off the controls seems to
>>be
>> reasonably balanced. I've entered at speeds up to
>>90 knots,
>> and have always lost 8,000 or more before having to
>>take
>> control for landing. I've never seen excess G's, but
>>I've
>> never been in extreme wave conditions during these
>>tests and
>> I've never tried this by entering from extreme high
>>speeds
>> as one might be experiencing attempting to move out
>>from IMC
>> wave conditions. I have seen some 1/2- 1.5 g excursions,
>> but bank has always remained within 45 degrees.
>>
>> I wonder if anyone else has tried this in a modern
>>glider
>> and wants to report their experience.
>> --
>> T o d d P a t t i s t - 'WH' Ventus C
>> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
>
>
>

[bumper]

It went into an unstable phugoid oscillation with each dive being steeper
than the previous. I chickened out and stopped the "test" early on after my
ears got pinned back - - and I was in a closed cockpit (g).

I did not have spoilers or gear out.

bumper
"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> "bumper" > wrote:
>
>>I'd not want to rely on a benign spiral or spinning to exit IMC.
>
> I agree with the spin comment, but I'm five for five on the
> benign spiral.
>
>>I'd hate to rely on a benign spiral if there was anything but glass smooth
>>air. The few times I've tried a benign spiral, it didn't stay benign for
>>long.
>
> How did it go bad? Did you go too fast, too steep a bank or
> did it want to loop/stall? I have to admit on some
> excursions, I was awfully tempted to touch the controls, but
> it always made it just fine until I'd lost at least 8,000'.
> --
> T o d d P a t t i s t - "WH" Ventus C
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >, "bumper" >
wrote:

> It went into an unstable phugoid oscillation with each dive being steeper
> than the previous. I chickened out and stopped the "test" early on after my
> ears got pinned back - - and I was in a closed cockpit (g).
>
> I did not have spoilers or gear out.

That's the problem. The more drag you can put out the more stable it is.

Here's why.

First of all, more drag limits speed buildup when the nose is down,
giving time for the extra lift from increased speed to raise the nose
before the speed is such that you're going to go way nose up.

Second, you are never going to have a roll rate of precisely zero. It's
only manual corrections that keep the wings level (or at constant bank),
wich you can't do when you can't see. Given enough time, even a tiny
roll rate will tip you over. BUT, when you're gliding (losing altitude
comparred to the air) a portion of the roll rate goes directly into
changing your heading. The steeper your glide angle the greater that
coupling is. If you're 90 degrees nose down (which gliders with really
good airbrakes can do at a safe speed) then *all* the roll rate goes
into changing your heading, and none of it into tipping you over. If
you're 45 degrees nose down (which all cerrtified gliders can do) then
70% of the roll rate goes into changing your heading. Even at 1:7
(which certified gliders must be able to acheive at approach speed), 15%
of the roll rate goes straight into changing your heading. At 40:1 only
2.5% does.

Anyway. The point is that even if you have quite a large roll rate, if
your nose is well down, with the speed stabilised with drag, then the
roll rate just makes you turn faster instead of tipping you over, and
your bank angle will stabilize at almost certainly no more than 45 - 60
degrees, and quite probably only 30 degrees.


Every aircraft is different. But drag is the key to the whole thing.

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

[Jack]

bumper wrote:
> It went into an unstable phugoid oscillation with each dive being steeper
> than the previous. I chickened out and stopped the "test" early on after my
> ears got pinned back - - and I was in a closed cockpit (g).
>
> I did not have spoilers or gear out.

I thought certified aircraft were supposed to demonstrate diminishing
phugoids. No?


Jack

[Bruce]

Jack wrote:
> bumper wrote:
>
>> It went into an unstable phugoid oscillation with each dive being
>> steeper than the previous. I chickened out and stopped the "test"
>> early on after my ears got pinned back - - and I was in a closed
>> cockpit (g).
>>
>> I did not have spoilers or gear out.
>
>
> I thought certified aircraft were supposed to demonstrate diminishing
> phugoids. No?
>
>
> Jack
In all of the above - "certified glider" appears to apply to a JAR22 - EASA
certified glider.

Don't expect an older "certified" design to have the airbrake efficiency, or
pitch stability. Theory is my Cirrus will stay below Vne at 45%, hands off I
would hate to bet my life on it...

The Cirrus' phugoid amplitude seems to increase rather than decrease at the CG
positions I can achieve. Leave it long enough and it might just get exciting.
Might just be specific to my 35 year old mistress, but I think not.

Bruce

--
Bruce Greeff
Std Cirrus #57
I'm no-T at the address above.

[Jancsika]

bagmaker wrote:
> pardon my newbie ignorance, but -why not check a compass? If not turning
> and still flying, decending safely shouldnt be out of the question.

Compass is almost useless for instrument flying. It will just roll
left to right and back again with serious delays in most cases. If you
can maintain a 1 or 2 minute calm turn than it could help you to find
the desired path but won't tell you if you are turning or not.
Turn and bank indicator, vario, speed indicator, sound. You have to
use all of them simultaneously to keep the glider in the required
position. It's frustrating task... There is huge difference between a
turn with 90 or 110 km/h (VNE?).

/jancsika

[bumper]

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote > I have yet to
try the "hold a magnetic compass heading of
> south with rudder only" method or the "fly constant GPS
> heading" method to compare. The latter two are difficult to
> practice realistically in a single seat aircraft without
> being contaminated/influenced by the visual horizon.
> --
> T o d d P a t t i s t - "WH" Ventus C
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)


I used to think the GPS, and especially Garmin's excellent "panel page",
would be adequate to prevent pulling the wings off - - this assumes adequate
instrument training of course (I'm instrument rated, though not current).

Now, after some recent incidents and tragic accidents, I've concluded that I
was wrong. The GPS will be of little to no help in strong and varying wave
conditions such as we experience at Minden.

Since the GPS data displayed is base entirely on ground track, strong winds
will skew those results. Consider crabbing into a 70+ knot wind. A change in
wind speed, and thus ground track, will be displays as a roll on the Garmin
panel page - - not so good if one is trying to survive some moments in IMC.

Still, the Garmin panel page is useful and would work in lesser conditions.
I'm counting on it as my back up if the TruTrac fails. A benign spiral or
other aerodynamic tricks will remain a last resort options.

bumper

[Bill Daniels]

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> "bumper" > wrote:
>
> >It went into an unstable phugoid oscillation with each dive being steeper
> >than the previous. I chickened out and stopped the "test" early on after
my
> >ears got pinned back - - and I was in a closed cockpit (g).
> >
> >I did not have spoilers or gear out.
>
> I have always done this with the brakes out. It's always
> entered phugoid oscillations, but not so bad that I felt the
> aircraft was in any danger. I must admit that sometimes,
> they seemed to be getting more severe, but in the 8 -
> 10,000' I've had to play with, I've always been limited by
> the need to land, not by the need to protect the glider from
> itself. I'm reasonably confident that with 8,000' or less
> of cloud to descend through, it would protect itself better
> than I could.

Any high performance glider will have an undamped phugoid - they're just too
good at converting airspeed into altitude and vice versa. Opening the
spoilers and lowering the gear with help with damping. Experiments with any
particular glider are recomended.

>
> I have yet to try the "hold a magnetic compass heading of
> south with rudder only" method or the "fly constant GPS
> heading" method to compare. The latter two are difficult to
> practice realistically in a single seat aircraft without
> being contaminated/influenced by the visual horizon.
> --
I've practiced the south compass heading trick from the back seat of a Duo
Discus and it works surprisingly well particularly when combined with GPS
ground track data. I just used smooth, coordinated control inputs to hold
the south heading. However, I've had a LOT of IFR experience in single
engine light aircraft. Even so, I'd still want at least a T&B if I had to
try it in IMC.

Bill Daniels

[M B]

I've wondered, how about ejecting the canopy? It must
be an effective airbrake, lots of drag, right?''

And then if you have to bail, that's one less thing
to do, which is good...

I'm not saying this is realistic. I would be surprised
to find a pilot who would do this even if it would
save his life. Holding a spin all the way through
the lenticular is probably safer too, but it isn't
realistic to think anyone could actually accomplish
such a feat of willpower.

But both are worth a looksie from the armchair...

At 15:24 09 November 2005, T O D D P A T T I S T wrote:
>'bumper' wrote:
>
>>It went into an unstable phugoid oscillation with each
>>dive being steeper
>>than the previous. I chickened out and stopped the
>>'test' early on after my
>>ears got pinned back - - and I was in a closed cockpit
>>(g).
>>
>>I did not have spoilers or gear out.
>
>I have always done this with the brakes out. It's
>always
>entered phugoid oscillations, but not so bad that I
>felt the
>aircraft was in any danger. I must admit that sometimes,
>they seemed to be getting more severe, but in the 8
>-
>10,000' I've had to play with, I've always been limited
>by
>the need to land, not by the need to protect the glider
>from
>itself. I'm reasonably confident that with 8,000'
>or less
>of cloud to descend through, it would protect itself
>better
>than I could.
>
>I have yet to try the 'hold a magnetic compass heading
>of
>south with rudder only' method or the 'fly constant
>GPS
>heading' method to compare. The latter two are difficult
>to
>practice realistically in a single seat aircraft without
>being contaminated/influenced by the visual horizon.
>--
>T o d d P a t t i s t - 'WH' Ventus C
>(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
>
Mark J. Boyd

[[email protected]]

M B wrote:
> I've wondered, how about ejecting the canopy? It must
> be an effective airbrake, lots of drag, right?''
>
> And then if you have to bail, that's one less thing
> to do, which is good...
>
> I'm not saying this is realistic. I would be surprised
> to find a pilot who would do this even if it would
> save his life. Holding a spin all the way through
> the lenticular is probably safer too, but it isn't
> realistic to think anyone could actually accomplish
> such a feat of willpower.
>
> But both are worth a looksie from the armchair...


Doubtful that drag from canopy jettison would add enough drag to help
out of control spiral even if in that situation you could think of it.
As to spinning. Most gliders like this are not sufficiently stable in
the spin situiation
to count on this working. Even if in spin, if a gust unstalls the
glider(gusts can stall or unstall a glider) you are now seriously nose
down with no attitude reference or control.
Will be through VNE before you can count to 5.
In survival situation, best scenario is one that is most likely to keep
speed low and glider trying to fly in trimmed manner.
This would be:
Gear down
Flaps down in high drag configuration, if available.
Spoilers full open and held.
Trim into stable spiral in known direction before losing orientation.

This said- none of this would be useful in situation like described in
early part of this thread.
UH
>
> At 15:24 09 November 2005, T O D D P A T T I S T wrote:
> >'bumper' wrote:
> >
> >>It went into an unstable phugoid oscillation with each
> >>dive being steeper
> >>than the previous. I chickened out and stopped the
> >>'test' early on after my
> >>ears got pinned back - - and I was in a closed cockpit
> >>(g).
> >>
> >>I did not have spoilers or gear out.
> >
> >I have always done this with the brakes out. It's
> >always
> >entered phugoid oscillations, but not so bad that I
> >felt the
> >aircraft was in any danger. I must admit that sometimes,
> >they seemed to be getting more severe, but in the 8
> >-
> >10,000' I've had to play with, I've always been limited
> >by
> >the need to land, not by the need to protect the glider
> >from
> >itself. I'm reasonably confident that with 8,000'
> >or less
> >of cloud to descend through, it would protect itself
> >better
> >than I could.
> >
> >I have yet to try the 'hold a magnetic compass heading
> >of
> >south with rudder only' method or the 'fly constant
> >GPS
> >heading' method to compare. The latter two are difficult
> >to
> >practice realistically in a single seat aircraft without
> >being contaminated/influenced by the visual horizon.
> >--
> >T o d d P a t t i s t - 'WH' Ventus C
> >(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
> >
> Mark J. Boyd

[[email protected]]

BSR? Ballistic Recovery System
Possibly useful for wave flying?

[Bert Willing]

Why? Reading the report of the accident, it rather seems that he was looking
for **** to happen?

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


> a écrit dans le message de news:
. com...
> BSR? Ballistic Recovery System
> Possibly useful for wave flying?
>

[Eric Greenwell]

wrote:
> M B wrote:
>
>>I've wondered, how about ejecting the canopy? It must
>>be an effective airbrake, lots of drag, right?''
>>
>>And then if you have to bail, that's one less thing
>>to do, which is good...
>>
>>I'm not saying this is realistic. I would be surprised
>>to find a pilot who would do this even if it would
>>save his life. Holding a spin all the way through
>>the lenticular is probably safer too, but it isn't
>>realistic to think anyone could actually accomplish
>>such a feat of willpower.
>>
>>But both are worth a looksie from the armchair...
>
>
>
> Doubtful that drag from canopy jettison would add enough drag to help
> out of control spiral even if in that situation you could think of it.
> As to spinning. Most gliders like this are not sufficiently stable in
> the spin situiation
> to count on this working. Even if in spin, if a gust unstalls the
> glider(gusts can stall or unstall a glider) you are now seriously nose
> down with no attitude reference or control.
> Will be through VNE before you can count to 5.
> In survival situation, best scenario is one that is most likely to keep
> speed low and glider trying to fly in trimmed manner.
> This would be:
> Gear down
> Flaps down in high drag configuration, if available.
> Spoilers full open and held.
> Trim into stable spiral in known direction before losing orientation.
>
> This said- none of this would be useful in situation like described in
> early part of this thread.
> UH

A further problem would be the intense cold and 60-70 knot wind in your
face. Would your sunglasses provide any protection? Would you be able to
fly the glider, even if the extra drag improved the situation? Perhaps
someone that has jettisioned or lost a canopy can tell us.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[bagmaker]

I had not heard of a "benign spiral" before this thread. Can someone please explain it to me and all? Thanks, Wayne

[Tony Verhulst]

bagmaker wrote:
> I had not heard of a "benign spiral" before this thread. Can someone
> please explain it to me and all? Thanks, Wayne
>
>

Google - "benign spiral" glider - 350 hits.

Tony V

[[email protected]]

I wonder if any of you have experience vertigo training. Let me share
one experience.

The room was full of 22 to 26 year old Air Force Officers in Pilot
Training. The general naive attitude was it can't happen to me.

Each of us were strapped one by one in a chair that rotated on ball
bearings and had a rail around the outside. We were asked to bend and
put our heads on the rail and close our eyes. We were then spun for
about 30 seconds, about the time it takes for your inner ear to
equalize and stop sensing acceleration. If the chair was slowed down
you felt as though you were spinning in the opposite direction. The
chair was then stopped and you were asked to raise up and read the
clock at the back of the room..

The room tumbled your leg went out to save you from the perceived fall
and get this about 30 seconds later you could read the time.

I think that spinning a glider to get out of an IFR condition may work,
but as others have recommended stay out of the clouds.

[[email protected]]

I wonder if any of you have experience vertigo training. Let me share
one experience.

The room was full of 22 to 26 year old Air Force Officers in Pilot
Training. The general naive attitude was it can't happen to me.

Each of us were strapped one by one in a chair that rotated on ball
bearings and had a rail around the outside. We were asked to bend and
put our heads on the rail and close our eyes. We were then spun for
about 30 seconds, about the time it takes for your inner ear to
equalize and stop sensing acceleration. If the chair was slowed down
you felt as though you were spinning in the opposite direction. The
chair was then stopped and you were asked to raise up and read the
clock at the back of the room..

The room tumbled your leg went out to save you from the perceived fall
and get this about 30 seconds later you could read the time.

I think that spinning a glider to get out of an IFR condition may work,
but as others have recommended stay out of the clouds.


Richard
www.craggyaero.com

[Ray Lovinggood]

Richard,

I attended the Air Force Physiological Training seminar
for three days back in 1985 or so. We got to do the
spinning chair experiment. We also got to 'fly' in
the altitude chamber.

The instructor mentioned one time, wives of the pilots
were invited to sit in on the classes to see what their
husbands were doing. One young lady took her seat
in the chair, closed her eyes and put her head down.
The chair was spun and stopped. She was asked to
raise her head, open her eyes, and point to the clock
on the back wall and tell what time it was.

She opened her eyes and pointed steadily to the clock
and without a blink, said, 'It's twelve minutes past
three.' She showed no signs of dizziness or vertigo
of any kind.

They were all dumbfounded. How could this be? Was
she not human?

Turns out she did a lot of gymnastics...


Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA

At 18:25 11 November 2005, wrote:
>I wonder if any of you have experience vertigo training.
> Let me share
>one experience.
>
>The room was full of 22 to 26 year old Air Force Officers
>in Pilot
>Training. The general naive attitude was it can't
>happen to me.
>
>Each of us were strapped one by one in a chair that
>rotated on ball
>bearings and had a rail around the outside. We were
>asked to bend and
>put our heads on the rail and close our eyes. We were
>then spun for
>about 30 seconds, about the time it takes for your
>inner ear to
>equalize and stop sensing acceleration. If the chair
>was slowed down
>you felt as though you were spinning in the opposite
>direction. The
>chair was then stopped and you were asked to raise
>up and read the
>clock at the back of the room..
>
>The room tumbled your leg went out to save you from
>the perceived fall
>and get this about 30 seconds later you could read
>the time.
>
>I think that spinning a glider to get out of an IFR
>condition may work,
>but as others have recommended stay out of the clouds.
>
>
>Richard
>www.craggyaero.com
>
>

[bumper]

In the early 90's, the FAA had a vertigo demonstration simulator at the Reno
Air Races. Similar concept, you got in, closed the door and only reference
was the instrument panel. They had you change frequencies on the radio and
do a chore or two while the simulator turned and the inner ear stabilized.
You were supposed to try and keep the thing upright with no gyro
instruments. Course when it stopped turning you just knew it was turning in
the other direction.

bumper
"Ray Lovinggood" > wrote in message
...
> Richard,
>
> I attended the Air Force Physiological Training seminar
> for three days back in 1985 or so. We got to do the
> spinning chair experiment. We also got to 'fly' in
> the altitude chamber.
>
> The instructor mentioned one time, wives of the pilots
> were invited to sit in on the classes to see what their
> husbands were doing. One young lady took her seat
> in the chair, closed her eyes and put her head down.
> The chair was spun and stopped. She was asked to
> raise her head, open her eyes, and point to the clock
> on the back wall and tell what time it was.
>
> She opened her eyes and pointed steadily to the clock
> and without a blink, said, 'It's twelve minutes past
> three.' She showed no signs of dizziness or vertigo
> of any kind.
>
> They were all dumbfounded. How could this be? Was
> she not human?
>
> Turns out she did a lot of gymnastics...
>
>
> Ray Lovinggood
> Carrboro, North Carolina, USA
>
> At 18:25 11 November 2005, wrote:
>>I wonder if any of you have experience vertigo training.
>> Let me share
>>one experience.
>>
>>The room was full of 22 to 26 year old Air Force Officers
>>in Pilot
>>Training. The general naive attitude was it can't
>>happen to me.
>>
>>Each of us were strapped one by one in a chair that
>>rotated on ball
>>bearings and had a rail around the outside. We were
>>asked to bend and
>>put our heads on the rail and close our eyes. We were
>>then spun for
>>about 30 seconds, about the time it takes for your
>>inner ear to
>>equalize and stop sensing acceleration. If the chair
>>was slowed down
>>you felt as though you were spinning in the opposite
>>direction. The
>>chair was then stopped and you were asked to raise
>>up and read the
>>clock at the back of the room..
>>
>>The room tumbled your leg went out to save you from
>>the perceived fall
>>and get this about 30 seconds later you could read
>>the time.
>>
>>I think that spinning a glider to get out of an IFR
>>condition may work,
>>but as others have recommended stay out of the clouds.
>>
>>
>>Richard
>>www.craggyaero.com
>>
>>
>
>
>

[bumper]

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> "bumper" > wrote:
>
>>Since the GPS data displayed is base entirely on ground track, strong
>>winds
>>will skew those results. Consider crabbing into a 70+ knot wind. A change
>>in
>>wind speed, and thus ground track, will be displays as a roll on the
>>Garmin
>>panel page - - not so good if one is trying to survive some moments in
>>IMC.
>
> It might make sense to head downwind before entering the
> cloud and hold that heading if you were using GPS to
> maintain level flight. It would produce less influence on
> the ground track and a less drastic roll rate indicated as
> compared to heading into the wind.
> --
> T o d d P a t t i s t - "WH" Ventus C
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

True, this might be the best option if GPS is your only tool to get down.
However, in wave conditions in mountainous terrain, this might have our
hapless pilot in IMC, and flying towards the next unseen downwind obstacle
at blazingly high ground speeds (g).

bumper

[Eric Greenwell]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
> "bumper" > wrote:
>
>
>>Since the GPS data displayed is base entirely on ground track, strong winds
>>will skew those results. Consider crabbing into a 70+ knot wind. A change in
>>wind speed, and thus ground track, will be displays as a roll on the Garmin
>>panel page - - not so good if one is trying to survive some moments in IMC.
>
>
> It might make sense to head downwind before entering the
> cloud and hold that heading if you were using GPS to
> maintain level flight. It would produce less influence on
> the ground track and a less drastic roll rate indicated as
> compared to heading into the wind.

My experimenting showed going downwind made the heading very insensitive
to turning (the opposite of going upwind, as you might guess). I suspect
this would be just as much a problem as the very sensitive situation
going upwind, but I haven't tried either in realistic situations.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[bumper]

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...

> My experimenting showed going downwind made the heading very insensitive
> to turning (the opposite of going upwind, as you might guess). I suspect
> this would be just as much a problem as the very sensitive situation going
> upwind, but I haven't tried either in realistic situations.
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA

Eric,

I thought that too, but imagine downwind would still be a better than
upwind - - if all you had was a GPS to stay upright.

In strong wave conditions, as you know, the ship might be stationary over
the ground or moving in any direction relative to its nose. I've watched my
moving map go spastic trying to figure out which way to orient the display
while nosed into 70 knots. Up like an elevator . . . I love Minden!!

bumper

[Derek Copeland]

Just as an experiment, set your GPS to go to a local
feature, such as your clubhouse, and try walking backwards
away from it while holding the GPS unit. You will then
find that the 'compass' needle will tell you that the
feature is behind you!

No I didn't believe it either at first, but a friend
of mine flying sufficiently slowly in wave near the
Long Mynd site in Shropshire, England, as to back up
slightly relative to the ground, reported this precise
effect. He could clearly see the Mynd clubhouse in
front of him, but the GPS needle was telling him it
was in the opposite direction.

Remember that a GPS is not a compass and it tells you
what track you are making good, rather than which direction
you are pointing.

Not normally a problem I know, But it can become one
when you are flying into a very strong wind, as in
wave flying, and not moving over the ground, or even
going backwards.

Derek Copeland

At 02:00 13 November 2005, Bumper wrote:
>'Eric Greenwell' wrote in message
...
>
>> My experimenting showed going downwind made the heading
>>very insensitive
>> to turning (the opposite of going upwind, as you might
>>guess). I suspect
>> this would be just as much a problem as the very sensitive
>>situation going
>> upwind, but I haven't tried either in realistic situations.
>>
>> --
>> Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
>>
>> Eric Greenwell
>> Washington State
>> USA
>
>Eric,
>
>I thought that too, but imagine downwind would still
>be a better than
>upwind - - if all you had was a GPS to stay upright.
>
>In strong wave conditions, as you know, the ship might
>be stationary over
>the ground or moving in any direction relative to its
>nose. I've watched my
>moving map go spastic trying to figure out which way
>to orient the display
>while nosed into 70 knots. Up like an elevator . .
>. I love Minden!!
>
>bumper
>
>
>

[Gary Evans]

At 02:00 13 November 2005, Bumper wrote:
>'Eric Greenwell' wrote in message
...
>
>> My experimenting showed going downwind made the heading
>>very insensitive
>> to turning (the opposite of going upwind, as you might
>>guess). I suspect
>> this would be just as much a problem as the very sensitive
>>situation going
>> upwind, but I haven't tried either in realistic situations.
>>
>> --
>> Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
>>
>> Eric Greenwell
>> Washington State
>> USA
>
>Eric,
>
>I thought that too, but imagine downwind would still
>be a better than
>upwind - - if all you had was a GPS to stay upright.
>
>In strong wave conditions, as you know, the ship might
>be stationary over
>the ground or moving in any direction relative to its
>nose. I've watched my
>moving map go spastic trying to figure out which way
>to orient the display
>while nosed into 70 knots. Up like an elevator . .
>. I love Minden!!
>
>bumper
>
>

I have tried flying straight using my moving map at
maximum scale and consider it just one step more practical
than screaming.

[Tony Verhulst]

> Remember that a GPS is not a compass and it tells you
> what track you are making good, rather than which direction
> you are pointing.

I've seen my moving map (Glide Navigator II) flip on me in high wind
(60+ kts) wave, showing the Gardner MA, USA, airport behind me when I
could see it in front of me. It's probably a difficult software fix and
not important enough to bother with.

Tony V
htth://home.comcasst.net/~verhulst/SOARING

[Martin Gregorie]

Tony Verhulst wrote:
>
> I've seen my moving map (Glide Navigator II) flip on me in high wind
> (60+ kts) wave, showing the Gardner MA, USA, airport behind me when I
> could see it in front of me. It's probably a difficult software fix and
> not important enough to bother with.
>
At a guess changing the Glide Navigator map orientation setting from
Heading Up to North Up would do the trick. Same would work for almost
any PDA moving map system I should think.

--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. |
org | Zappa fan & glider pilot

[Richard Brisbourne]

Tony Verhulst wrote:

> I've seen my moving map (Glide Navigator II) flip on me in high wind
> (60+ kts) wave, showing the Gardner MA, USA, airport behind me when I
> could see it in front of me. It's probably a difficult software fix and
> not important enough to bother with.

I'd say an impossible software fix. All the GPS engine can do is detect
where it is, and hence which way it's moving. Since it's not a compass it
can't detect how it's oriented without additional hardware. As an obvious
illustration, try holding it upside down.
--
Real name is richard

[dhaluza]

The phugoid should have a stable amplitude (not diminishing) with stick
fixed, but not with stick free.

[[email protected]]

GPS heading is based on, obviously, your ground track (the GPS has no
knowledge of your airspeed or magnetic heading). If your ground speed
is low, or zero, (as may well be the case in wave) the GPS heading is
useless. The only way to get useful information is to speed up so that
the ground speed is, at least, a healthy fraction of the airspeed (say
25-50%). This, of course, means you are no longer "parked" in the wave
and are moving relative to the ground. In your crabbing scenario, a
wind speed change will lead to a change in your heading over the
ground. In IMC, the pilot will not know whether he rolled or whether
the wind changed, at least not immediately. If he rolled, however, the
heading will continue to change, while if the wind speed changed to,
and remainded constant at, a new value the heading will initially
change and then remain at the new heading. In both situations the pilot
can react be rolling the opposite direction and either:

1. correct the roll
or
2. commence a turn that returns the heading to the desired point.

A better solution for strong wave conditions is an artificial horizon,
which are now available in electronic form (although the power
consumption is somewhat higher than I would like). But GPS can still be
used for an emergency descent in IMC conditions, IF you keep your
airspeed significantly above the wind speed.

Tom

[bumper]

In the vertigo induced confusion of IMC in high wind wave conditions, I'd
not recommend relying on most of what you wrote. Pushing the nose over to
increase ground speed at altitude and in high wind, can almost instantly
result in exceeding VNE. IMC is no place for trying to convince your ground
track "confused" GPS to rescue your butt! Nor would one likely have the time
to change speed and try to evaluate what the GPS is telling you - - and then
try to equate that to roll. The loud bang, indicating departure of wings,
would likely interrupt this process.

Better to be prepared and fly with both training and some sort of horizon
reference, be it Tru-trak, PC Flightsystems or MGL. PC flightsystems has a
new one that looks interesting http://www.pcflightsystems.com/EGYRO2.htm.
I'm happy with my Tru-trak and the Garmin 196 panel page (the 196 for
reasonable wind conditions).

bumper (instrument rated :c)
Minden, NV



> wrote in message
oups.com...
> GPS heading is based on, obviously, your ground track (the GPS has no
> knowledge of your airspeed or magnetic heading). If your ground speed
> is low, or zero, (as may well be the case in wave) the GPS heading is
> useless. The only way to get useful information is to speed up so that
> the ground speed is, at least, a healthy fraction of the airspeed (say
> 25-50%). This, of course, means you are no longer "parked" in the wave
> and are moving relative to the ground. In your crabbing scenario, a
> wind speed change will lead to a change in your heading over the
> ground. In IMC, the pilot will not know whether he rolled or whether
> the wind changed, at least not immediately. If he rolled, however, the
> heading will continue to change, while if the wind speed changed to,
> and remainded constant at, a new value the heading will initially
> change and then remain at the new heading. In both situations the pilot
> can react be rolling the opposite direction and either:
>
> 1. correct the roll
> or
> 2. commence a turn that returns the heading to the desired point.
>
> A better solution for strong wave conditions is an artificial horizon,
> which are now available in electronic form (although the power
> consumption is somewhat higher than I would like). But GPS can still be
> used for an emergency descent in IMC conditions, IF you keep your
> airspeed significantly above the wind speed.
>
> Tom
>

[[email protected]]

Pushing the nose down won't "instantly" result in exceeding Vne! If you
are going to fly wave you had better now what your speed limits are at
altitude. If you don't, DON'T GO!!

If you are close to Vne then you will have to turn down wind and suffer
the consequences.

I have descended thru 7K feet of IMC on just a compass, altimeter and
ASI; I wasn't confused, nor was I suffering from vertigo. That can
happen to pilots regardless of their equipment. If you don't believe
me, just ask JFK Jr (or his heirs). There will be those who chose not
to equip their gliders with artificial horizons; I am simply advising
them of their options should they encounter inadvertant IMC. You can
tell them that they shouldn't fly wave w/o an artificial horizon, but
they will anyway. When the s**t hits the fan, you use what is
available.

Tom