no instrument flight

[Robert Bruce]

It might an old message, but I ran across it and would
encourage instructors and those who haven't to at least
experience two flights with no reference to instruments,
at least to pattern altitude. Learn to use the wind
noise and pitch attitude on a glider you know well.
One of the more rewarding aspects of glider flight
is getting away from the knobs and dials and reading
the winds, feeling the thermals in your butt, etc.
Even in the most advanced sailplanes. It also makes
one a better pilot and more confident. When I have
a student that is at the last stage before solo and
they appear to be having trouble with the landing,
most of the time it is instrument fixation, and these
flights right before solo are perfect for zero instruments.
They can do it and it's a great confidence builder.
You'll be in the back seat keeping a watchful eye
as the instructor pilot.

there have been many off field landings and off the
end of the pavement landings that likely could have
been avoided if this 'oneness' with the aircraft were
stressed more in our training. I believe the SSF does
support this position and use of 'instrument failure'
as part of the teaching syllabus. They have a fine
web site very useful to CFIs anywhere.

Regards to the German instructor that brought it up.

Bob
San Antonio Soaring
Boerne Stage Field

[BTIZ]

We have our students do a no instrument (No Altimeter and No AirSpeed) not
just down to pattern altitude.. but all the way to landing. If it fails..
you are not going to get it back in the traffic pattern. And also to remove
that "altitude crutch" when judging the pattern.
BT


"Robert Bruce" > wrote in message
...
> It might an old message, but I ran across it and would
> encourage instructors and those who haven't to at least
> experience two flights with no reference to instruments,
> at least to pattern altitude. Learn to use the wind
> noise and pitch attitude on a glider you know well.
> One of the more rewarding aspects of glider flight
> is getting away from the knobs and dials and reading
> the winds, feeling the thermals in your butt, etc.
> Even in the most advanced sailplanes. It also makes
> one a better pilot and more confident. When I have
> a student that is at the last stage before solo and
> they appear to be having trouble with the landing,
> most of the time it is instrument fixation, and these
> flights right before solo are perfect for zero instruments.
> They can do it and it's a great confidence builder.
> You'll be in the back seat keeping a watchful eye
> as the instructor pilot.
>
> there have been many off field landings and off the
> end of the pavement landings that likely could have
> been avoided if this 'oneness' with the aircraft were
> stressed more in our training. I believe the SSF does
> support this position and use of 'instrument failure'
> as part of the teaching syllabus. They have a fine
> web site very useful to CFIs anywhere.
>
> Regards to the German instructor that brought it up.
>
> Bob
> San Antonio Soaring
> Boerne Stage Field
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

No airspeed and/or altimeter training is essential. From personal
experience (2000+ glider hours in both rental and private gliders) you
WILL eventually lose the use of either of these instruments inflight -
and it should be absolutely no big deal!

Altimeter first - this is a plain old no-brainer. This is probably the
least valuable (after the compass) instrument in the glider for safe
flight. And it has NO serious business in the pilot's crosscheck once
the decision to land has been made - which could be at 1000' agl at the
IP, or 20 miles out on a final glide to a field you have never been to.
Any student who refers to the altimeter in the pattern should be
immediatly deprived of the use of that instrument until he understands
how to visually judge his pattern, from both high and low initial
points. I cringe when I find the altimeters in the club two-seat ships
I fly set to zero (QFE) instead of field elevation - because the
implication is that our club instructors and students are using the
altimeter as a crutch in the pattern.

Now, the airspeed indicator. Nice to have, but again, not necessary
for safe flight once the concept of angle-of-attack is thouroughly
understood. While I would probably fly my own ship knowing the
altimeter wasn't working (and wouldn't hesitate with a working GPS), I
wouldn't take off with a known bad airspeed indicator. But once
airborne, it really isn't a big deal - especially with some practice
and familiarity with the glider.

Kirk
66

[nimbusgb]

Non instrumented flight or at least circuit practice is part of the UK
syllabus. I agree it is a very necessary skill to have.

Want some fun? Remove the front canopy string and ask the student to
fly without it! I lost the string on takeoff on my Nimbus 3 once, boy
did I ever have to work hard for the next couple of hours. At the best
of time that ship wanted to fly sideways, without the string it was
nigh-on impossible to be confident that I was going straight. On
reflection on the ground I think that the loss of the string in an open
class ship presented more of a danger than say a blocked static ( had
that once too! ) and loosing vario, altimeter and ASI all at once.

Ian

[Shawn[_1_]]

Robert Bruce wrote:
> It might an old message, but I ran across it and would
> encourage instructors and those who haven't to at least
> experience two flights with no reference to instruments,
> at least to pattern altitude. Learn to use the wind
> noise and pitch attitude on a glider you know well.
> One of the more rewarding aspects of glider flight
> is getting away from the knobs and dials and reading
> the winds, feeling the thermals in your butt, etc.
> Even in the most advanced sailplanes. It also makes
> one a better pilot and more confident. When I have
> a student that is at the last stage before solo and
> they appear to be having trouble with the landing,
> most of the time it is instrument fixation, and these
> flights right before solo are perfect for zero instruments.
> They can do it and it's a great confidence builder.
> You'll be in the back seat keeping a watchful eye
> as the instructor pilot.
>
> there have been many off field landings and off the
> end of the pavement landings that likely could have
> been avoided if this 'oneness' with the aircraft were
> stressed more in our training. I believe the SSF does
> support this position and use of 'instrument failure'
> as part of the teaching syllabus. They have a fine
> web site very useful to CFIs anywhere.

Why not begin instruction with both ASI and Alt. covered, until final
prep for solo? If the ship has instruments in the back for the
instructor, to meet the minimum equipment list, I don't see a down-side.
No crutchs, no bad habits.
Thoughts?

Shawn

[Eric Greenwell[_1_]]

wrote:
> No airspeed and/or altimeter training is essential.

I agree with this, but ...

> From personal
> experience (2000+ glider hours in both rental and private gliders) you
> WILL eventually lose the use of either of these instruments inflight -
> and it should be absolutely no big deal!

....suppose you always flew gliders with a redundant altimeter that read
AGL? Would it be proper for the pilot to refer to this during landing?
Would he be safer overall, even if his "that looks about right" skills
faded a bit?

A lot of us have this redundant, AGL readout altimeter in our cockpits
already: it's a PDA running a program like SeeYou or Winpilot.

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

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"

[[email protected]]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> ...suppose you always flew gliders with a redundant altimeter that read
> AGL? Would it be proper for the pilot to refer to this during landing?
> Would he be safer overall, even if his "that looks about right" skills
> faded a bit?
>
> A lot of us have this redundant, AGL readout altimeter in our cockpits
> already: it's a PDA running a program like SeeYou or Winpilot.

Eric,

The problem is, as always, with the "always". Most low time or student
pilots will probably not be flying in a glider equipped with a PDA - or
a glide computer, for that matter!

In addition, while the PDA is a fantastic tool (I use MCU, with the AGL
navbox on all the time) it is also a serious "eye-magnet", and the last
thing a pilot should be looking at in the pattern! It should really be
used in the same way as the altimeter - at the IP (or equivalent) to
confirm the approximate height above the landing area, then once
commited to a landing, should be completely ignored.

Like drugs, all the fancy moving map displays have a big potential for
mis-use - there is so much neat information there, that it is a real
temptation (especially during "easy" phases of flight) to look at the
display and play with it, instead of looking out the window. One needs
to train oneself to only access the information when it is needed, and
to setup the displays so that important info is easily gained without a
lot of button pushing - otherwise it can be a real safety hazard!

Kirk
66

[Eric Greenwell[_1_]]

wrote:
> Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> ...suppose you always flew gliders with a redundant altimeter that read
>> AGL? Would it be proper for the pilot to refer to this during landing?
>> Would he be safer overall, even if his "that looks about right" skills
>> faded a bit?
>>
>> A lot of us have this redundant, AGL readout altimeter in our cockpits
>> already: it's a PDA running a program like SeeYou or Winpilot.
>
> Eric,
>
> The problem is, as always, with the "always". Most low time or student
> pilots will probably not be flying in a glider equipped with a PDA - or
> a glide computer, for that matter!

I don't think it's a good thing for student pilots, but how about the
licensed pilot flying cross-country? Would outlandings be safer if
pilots used the AGL information? I already do so to some extent, when I
use the "make waypoint here" feature over a good outlanding field, then
use that waypoint as my "target" for the glide computer.

>
> In addition, while the PDA is a fantastic tool (I use MCU, with the AGL
> navbox on all the time) it is also a serious "eye-magnet", and the last
> thing a pilot should be looking at in the pattern! It should really be
> used in the same way as the altimeter - at the IP (or equivalent) to
> confirm the approximate height above the landing area, then once
> commited to a landing, should be completely ignored.

That's the way I think it should be used. The big difference over an
altimeter is the PDA/moving map can indicate (fairly well) your AGL at
an uncharted farmer's field, and the altimeter can't.

>
> Like drugs, all the fancy moving map displays have a big potential for
> mis-use - there is so much neat information there, that it is a real
> temptation (especially during "easy" phases of flight) to look at the
> display and play with it, instead of looking out the window. One needs
> to train oneself to only access the information when it is needed, and
> to setup the displays so that important info is easily gained without a
> lot of button pushing - otherwise it can be a real safety hazard!

Absolutely! Pilots should know the difference between "need to know" and
"just interesting" information. Of course, I had the same problem with
paper maps, rulers, and whiz wheel calculators, trying to figure out
where I was, how far away I was from a safe field, and if I could still
get there. A difference, perhaps, is I suspect pilots weren't likely to
pull out a paper map while in a gaggle, but they might be inclined to
punch a few buttons on their glide computers while in the gaggle.


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

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"

[Marc Ramsey]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> I don't think it's a good thing for student pilots, but how about the
> licensed pilot flying cross-country? Would outlandings be safer if
> pilots used the AGL information? I already do so to some extent, when I
> use the "make waypoint here" feature over a good outlanding field, then
> use that waypoint as my "target" for the glide computer.

I've been working with digital terrain elevation data since the mid-80s.
There are noticeable errors in some of the publicly available source
data. Fitting data for a usable area into the memory available in a PDA
requires a reduction in resolution. One also needs to consider the
possibility of significant GPS altitude errors. This data is fine for
drawing maps and getting a general idea of the height of the terrain,
but, in my opinion, depending on it for flying a pattern into an
unfamiliar field would be a mistake...

Marc

[Bill Daniels]

"Shawn" <sdotherecurry@bresnannextdotnet> wrote in message
. ..
> Robert Bruce wrote:
>> It might an old message, but I ran across it and would
>> encourage instructors and those who haven't to at least
>> experience two flights with no reference to instruments,
>> at least to pattern altitude. Learn to use the wind
>> noise and pitch attitude on a glider you know well.
>> One of the more rewarding aspects of glider flight
>> is getting away from the knobs and dials and reading
>> the winds, feeling the thermals in your butt, etc.
>> Even in the most advanced sailplanes. It also makes
>> one a better pilot and more confident. When I have
>> a student that is at the last stage before solo and
>> they appear to be having trouble with the landing,
>> most of the time it is instrument fixation, and these
>> flights right before solo are perfect for zero instruments.
>> They can do it and it's a great confidence builder.
>> You'll be in the back seat keeping a watchful eye
>> as the instructor pilot.
>>
>> there have been many off field landings and off the
>> end of the pavement landings that likely could have
>> been avoided if this 'oneness' with the aircraft were
>> stressed more in our training. I believe the SSF does
>> support this position and use of 'instrument failure'
>> as part of the teaching syllabus. They have a fine
>> web site very useful to CFIs anywhere.
>
> Why not begin instruction with both ASI and Alt. covered, until final prep
> for solo? If the ship has instruments in the back for the instructor, to
> meet the minimum equipment list, I don't see a down-side. No crutchs, no
> bad habits.
> Thoughts?
>
> Shawn

I've done this more and more lately. With the insutrments covered, students
don't have anything to look at inside the cockpit so they look outside - at
things like pitch attitude, bank, other traffic and their position relative
to the gliderport. I suggest they gently raise the nose until the glider
shakes and makes funney noises and then lower it a little until it flies
smoothly. Maneuvers are made at this pitch attitude.

Stalls are just learning to recognize the shakes and funny noises and then
that if the nose is raised further, the glider will get really unhappy and
drop the nose and maybe a wing.

Landings are just lowering the nose a little from the min sink speed to make
the glider a bit noisier at the IP and fly the pattern holding this noise
level while constantly watching the angle to the runway. On final, they
just fly the same noisey airspeed right down to a foot above the runway,
level off with their eyes on the far end of the runway and wait patiently
until the glider lands itself.

Beginning students almost always do better with instruments covered. I
don't remove my Sporty's instrument covers from the airspeed and altimeter
until prepping the student for the checkride. By then they regard
instruments as interesting amd maybe even useful but by no means neccessary
for safe flight.

If I get a student from another school who is having problems, the first
thing is to pull out the Sporty's instrument covers. More often than not,
this cures the problem - neither the other instructor or the student
realized the problem was tunnel vision on the airspeed indicator.

Bill Daniels

[BTIZ]

> points. I cringe when I find the altimeters in the club two-seat ships
> I fly set to zero (QFE) instead of field elevation - because the
> implication is that our club instructors and students are using the
> altimeter as a crutch in the pattern.

We cannot set QFE and we scorn the eastern flat landers who come out here
and try that.
Our field elevation is to high to set the altimeter down to zero. And if you
set it to zero, how do you know you are remaining clear of the overhead
Class B Shelf or 9KMSL Mode C limitation (US 14CFR91.215). And if you are
going cross country, how do you know the elevation other than by visual
reference that you can clear the next mountain. Plus if you go cross
country, you can't always know the ground elevation that you are landing on,
so the altimeter is useless once committed.

BT

[Bruce Greef]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> wrote:
>
>> No airspeed and/or altimeter training is essential.
>
>
> I agree with this, but ...
>
>> From personal
>> experience (2000+ glider hours in both rental and private gliders) you
>> WILL eventually lose the use of either of these instruments inflight -
>> and it should be absolutely no big deal!
>
>
> ...suppose you always flew gliders with a redundant altimeter that read
> AGL? Would it be proper for the pilot to refer to this during landing?
> Would he be safer overall, even if his "that looks about right" skills
> faded a bit?
>
> A lot of us have this redundant, AGL readout altimeter in our cockpits
> already: it's a PDA running a program like SeeYou or Winpilot.
>
I have two mechanical altimeters in my cockpit - one in feet - always set to QNH
on take off. Once away from the field, in accordance with the regulations that
gets set to 1013Mb and used to report altitude.

Being a metrically indoctrinated mathematically challenged and mentally limited
XC pilot. I have tried to find ways to use the second altimeter to make my XC
easier and safer.
My experience is that the other one is a great aid for it is a metres alti, and
is generally set at QFE of my launch point. (this one does go to zero even at
4740" MSL...)

This gives me my working height very easily.
Add or subtract the terrain difference of target from launch (usually negligible
where I fly)
Subtract the height we want above ground for safety.
Each Km on the metres altimeter is 1x whatever I have set my Mc to in range. If
you want to you can even move the secondary so that it shows your desired target
altitude as zero - removing the mental arithmetic. Easy, fast access to
information, no electronic dependancy.

So on a reasonable XC in my Cirrus it is very simple to get to 27km range from
1km working height. For a typical final glide to my home field that is
4740+1000+3300 feet = 9040" on QFE, but the typical winter pressure altitude is
off by +500 to -800" so my feet altimeter will be showing anywhere between ~8200
and 9500".

The PDA+LX20 then gives me a computerised reality check - (assuming that there
have been no electronics failures)If what it is saying, and what my mental
arithmetic is saying differ substantially I know it is time to be careful and
start checking to find the mistake. Having the second altimeter (metric or
imperial) means you have less mistakes to make. Having the second altimeter in
metres, improves safety - I am never confused as to what information it is
giving me. If the Altimeter says feet it is altitude - always. If it says metres
it is working height - always.

Caveats -
1] this does not work very well when there is a large pressure gradient across
the are you cover. This is why the GPS altitude is very useful as a check.
2] If you are flying in mountainous terrain, the feet altitude of the terrain is
more significant than the working height (this only works well when there is no
solid stuff in your "working height")
3] If you are more comfortable with miles, then this is not likely to help much.

On your comment of eventually meeting a situation where you do not have full
instruments.

For what it is worth - Even with a normal complement of two varios, two
altimeters and a GPS/PDA, I have once had the experience of zero working
instrumentation. LX20 in Slovenia for calibration + one standard issue large bug
in the static line == no vario, no ASI, no altitude, half way up the winch
launch. Landing a little over an hour later was a little more cautious than
normal, I would not have wanted to do this in a field. I did land a little fast
and about 100m further past the threshold for safety - you don't want to get
slow in the landing with an early Cirrus... Finding and extracting the bug was a
lot more work.

[Chris Reed[_1_]]

wrote:
> Now, the airspeed indicator .... once
> airborne, it really isn't a big deal - especially with some practice
> and familiarity with the glider.
>
Not if it fails on a winch launch! Mine worked enough to show a flifker
on the ground, but stuck after I rotated. This got my attention,
particularly as the launch then felt slow (though of course I had no way
of checking). I think my decision to climb less steeply was the right
one - even if you're overspeeding on the winch, at a reduced angle of
attack you're less likely to do any damage and can always release if
it's clear from the sound and feel that you're really motoring.

Once I was in free flight, the circuit and landing were no problem,
especially as I know the aircraft well.

[Al[_1_]]

"Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Shawn" <sdotherecurry@bresnannextdotnet> wrote in message
> . ..
>> Robert Bruce wrote:
>>> It might an old message, but I ran across it and would
>>> encourage instructors and those who haven't to at least
>>> experience two flights with no reference to instruments,
>>> at least to pattern altitude. Learn to use the wind
>>> noise and pitch attitude on a glider you know well.
>>> One of the more rewarding aspects of glider flight
>>> is getting away from the knobs and dials and reading
>>> the winds, feeling the thermals in your butt, etc.
>>> Even in the most advanced sailplanes. It also makes
>>> one a better pilot and more confident. When I have
>>> a student that is at the last stage before solo and
>>> they appear to be having trouble with the landing,
>>> most of the time it is instrument fixation, and these
>>> flights right before solo are perfect for zero instruments.
>>> They can do it and it's a great confidence builder.
>>> You'll be in the back seat keeping a watchful eye
>>> as the instructor pilot.
>>>
>>> there have been many off field landings and off the
>>> end of the pavement landings that likely could have
>>> been avoided if this 'oneness' with the aircraft were
>>> stressed more in our training. I believe the SSF does
>>> support this position and use of 'instrument failure'
>>> as part of the teaching syllabus. They have a fine
>>> web site very useful to CFIs anywhere.
>>
>> Why not begin instruction with both ASI and Alt. covered, until final
>> prep for solo? If the ship has instruments in the back for the
>> instructor, to meet the minimum equipment list, I don't see a down-side.
>> No crutchs, no bad habits.
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Shawn
>
> I've done this more and more lately. With the insutrments covered,
> students don't have anything to look at inside the cockpit so they look
> outside - at things like pitch attitude, bank, other traffic and their
> position relative to the gliderport. I suggest they gently raise the nose
> until the glider shakes and makes funney noises and then lower it a little
> until it flies smoothly. Maneuvers are made at this pitch attitude.
>
> Stalls are just learning to recognize the shakes and funny noises and then
> that if the nose is raised further, the glider will get really unhappy and
> drop the nose and maybe a wing.
>
> Landings are just lowering the nose a little from the min sink speed to
> make the glider a bit noisier at the IP and fly the pattern holding this
> noise level while constantly watching the angle to the runway. On final,
> they just fly the same noisey airspeed right down to a foot above the
> runway, level off with their eyes on the far end of the runway and wait
> patiently until the glider lands itself.
>
> Beginning students almost always do better with instruments covered. I
> don't remove my Sporty's instrument covers from the airspeed and altimeter
> until prepping the student for the checkride. By then they regard
> instruments as interesting amd maybe even useful but by no means
> neccessary for safe flight.
>
> If I get a student from another school who is having problems, the first
> thing is to pull out the Sporty's instrument covers. More often than not,
> this cures the problem - neither the other instructor or the student
> realized the problem was tunnel vision on the airspeed indicator.
>
> Bill Daniels

Bill, by doing this you drastically improve the quality and confidence
of the pilots you graduate. As a 30 year CFI, I've gotten a few pilots with
this type of training, and I've gotten a lot of them that have not yet
received it, then it becomes my job. The ones that get this early invariably
do better, from 150's to Learjets, and particularly when we get to
instrument flying. They transfer that "outside" attitude inside. I am
convinced that this is one of the best "gifts" you can give your students.
May they pass it on.

Al G CFIAMI 2069297

[Joe]

I have done this to all my students prior to solo. Almost every time,
their speed control improves by not chasing the airspeed indicator. It
is a great confidence booster for the student and instructor. At
least you know your student is not going to panic if it happens in real
life. With all the bugs in summer, it does happen from time to time in
real life.


Al wrote:
> "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > "Shawn" <sdotherecurry@bresnannextdotnet> wrote in message
> > . ..
> >> Robert Bruce wrote:
> >>> It might an old message, but I ran across it and would
> >>> encourage instructors and those who haven't to at least
> >>> experience two flights with no reference to instruments,
> >>> at least to pattern altitude. Learn to use the wind
> >>> noise and pitch attitude on a glider you know well.
> >>> One of the more rewarding aspects of glider flight
> >>> is getting away from the knobs and dials and reading
> >>> the winds, feeling the thermals in your butt, etc.
> >>> Even in the most advanced sailplanes. It also makes
> >>> one a better pilot and more confident. When I have
> >>> a student that is at the last stage before solo and
> >>> they appear to be having trouble with the landing,
> >>> most of the time it is instrument fixation, and these
> >>> flights right before solo are perfect for zero instruments.
> >>> They can do it and it's a great confidence builder.
> >>> You'll be in the back seat keeping a watchful eye
> >>> as the instructor pilot.
> >>>
> >>> there have been many off field landings and off the
> >>> end of the pavement landings that likely could have
> >>> been avoided if this 'oneness' with the aircraft were
> >>> stressed more in our training. I believe the SSF does
> >>> support this position and use of 'instrument failure'
> >>> as part of the teaching syllabus. They have a fine
> >>> web site very useful to CFIs anywhere.
> >>
> >> Why not begin instruction with both ASI and Alt. covered, until final
> >> prep for solo? If the ship has instruments in the back for the
> >> instructor, to meet the minimum equipment list, I don't see a down-side.
> >> No crutchs, no bad habits.
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >> Shawn
> >
> > I've done this more and more lately. With the insutrments covered,
> > students don't have anything to look at inside the cockpit so they look
> > outside - at things like pitch attitude, bank, other traffic and their
> > position relative to the gliderport. I suggest they gently raise the nose
> > until the glider shakes and makes funney noises and then lower it a little
> > until it flies smoothly. Maneuvers are made at this pitch attitude.
> >
> > Stalls are just learning to recognize the shakes and funny noises and then
> > that if the nose is raised further, the glider will get really unhappy and
> > drop the nose and maybe a wing.
> >
> > Landings are just lowering the nose a little from the min sink speed to
> > make the glider a bit noisier at the IP and fly the pattern holding this
> > noise level while constantly watching the angle to the runway. On final,
> > they just fly the same noisey airspeed right down to a foot above the
> > runway, level off with their eyes on the far end of the runway and wait
> > patiently until the glider lands itself.
> >
> > Beginning students almost always do better with instruments covered. I
> > don't remove my Sporty's instrument covers from the airspeed and altimeter
> > until prepping the student for the checkride. By then they regard
> > instruments as interesting amd maybe even useful but by no means
> > neccessary for safe flight.
> >
> > If I get a student from another school who is having problems, the first
> > thing is to pull out the Sporty's instrument covers. More often than not,
> > this cures the problem - neither the other instructor or the student
> > realized the problem was tunnel vision on the airspeed indicator.
> >
> > Bill Daniels
>
> Bill, by doing this you drastically improve the quality and confidence
> of the pilots you graduate. As a 30 year CFI, I've gotten a few pilots with
> this type of training, and I've gotten a lot of them that have not yet
> received it, then it becomes my job. The ones that get this early invariably
> do better, from 150's to Learjets, and particularly when we get to
> instrument flying. They transfer that "outside" attitude inside. I am
> convinced that this is one of the best "gifts" you can give your students.
> May they pass it on.
>
> Al G CFIAMI 2069297

[Derek Copeland]

I have had an ASI failure in flight. A few hundred
feet up on an aerotow launch, I glanced at the instruments
and noticed that the ASI was reading 20 knots and slowly
falling. Realising that neither the tug nor the glider
were capable of flying at this speed, although they
were clearly doing so quite happily, I knew that it
had to be an instrument failure.

It was a very hot day, and the glider had been standing
out in the sun for several hours. What we subsequently
found had happened was that the plastic pipe leading
to the ASI had softened in the heat and slowly slipped
off the back of the pitot tube.

I decided to continue the aerotow, so I would have
some time to sort the problem out. The ASI continued
to drop until it was reading zero! Once off tow, I
slowly pulled the nose up until the pre-stall buffet
set in, so I then knew the stalling attitude. The type
of glider I was flying featured a large amount of washout
and I knew that the wingtips started bending down at
about 75 knots, so I slowly lowered the nose until
this happened. I then knew the attitudes between which
a reasonable speed could be maintained. BTW it was
a vintage glider, not mine, and I had only flown it
a couple of times before.

As it was quite a nice day, I soared quite happily
for a couple of hours, and even flew a short cross-country
flying by attitude alone. When I came into land, I
set the trimmer approximately central and flew a circuit
that would give me about a half brake approach. The
landing turned out to be a non-event, although I floated
a bit further than normal as the approach probably
erred a bit on the fast side.

I know of at least two other occasions where pilots
have suffered instrument failures and have managed
to cope with it.

Del Copeland


At 02:00 07 July 2006, Joe wrote:
>I have done this to all my students prior to solo.
> Almost every time,
>their speed control improves by not chasing the airspeed
>indicator. It
>is a great confidence booster for the student and instructor.
> At
>least you know your student is not going to panic if
>it happens in real
>life. With all the bugs in summer, it does happen
>from time to time in
>real life.
>
>

[Shawn[_1_]]

Derek Copeland wrote:
> I have had an ASI failure in flight. A few hundred
> feet up on an aerotow launch, I glanced at the instruments
> and noticed that the ASI was reading 20 knots and slowly
> falling. Realising that neither the tug nor the glider
> were capable of flying at this speed, although they
> were clearly doing so quite happily, I knew that it
> had to be an instrument failure.

snip story

> I know of at least two other occasions where pilots
> have suffered instrument failures and have managed
> to cope with it.

My first flight in a 1-34 had an ASI failure. I radioed the tow pilot
to fly along next to me at a reasonable pattern speed to get a feel for
the proper attitude to fly the pattern. Seemed to help. Did a few
stalls to see how far up the nose needed to be before I got into
trouble. I also recalled Tom Knauf's comment about how very few gliders
will stall under normal flight conditions (i.e. not accelerated stalls)
with the nose below the horizon. Probably landed a little hot, but
all's well...

Shawn

[g l i d e r s t u d]

Why are we talking about this as an emergency practice? Its really not,
maybe I should have bailed out of my Nimbus 3 because I lost all
instruments and the yaw string, then proceeded to go XC! This is
standard practice in training, at least it should be. If a student is
chasing an airspeed indicator, they don't get it anymore. If they
call off an altitude without looking outside they don't get an
altimeter anymore. I fly 2-33's and I don't have instruments in the
back, no big deal, can't see the front with an "average" male
American sitting in the front seat anyway.

The local club has a Blanik that they would approach at Mach 1, because
the ASI said 55knts!!! It didn't even dawn on them that it may be off.
A leak in the pitot system was found. But everyone was too interested
in what the needle pointed to vs. where the nose was pointed. After my
first pattern tow I bet a club member it was off, but they weren't
foolish enough to take it.

Yaw sting....if you cant feel your body sliding left or right when your
uncoordinated, you should probably relax some, because you are way too
uptight. But then again one of my coaches said I was too relaxed. On
that note my Discus 2ax didn't have a yaw sting, and my Nimbus 3
doesn't have one either, and I probably won't get it "fixed" before the
Opens. I fly in the mountains and I don't feel that it is hazardous.
Plus that sting is way too much drag.

If your "eye ball gauge" is getting rusty, maybe you should take
the time with your flight instructor on your next flight review to work
on it, perhaps even earlier. But then again we could always just wing
it and let it get worse over time.

[Stewart Kissel]

I flew without a yaw string once in a two-place ship
that the owner thought the mechanical T+B was better.
Thermalling and the such were okay, but I certainly
missed not having it as an input in the pattern. If
everything was going according to plan...I could live
without it. In a tight situation I would want information
from it.

[Don Johnstone]

At 06:42 08 July 2006, G L I D E R S T U D wrote:
>
>Yaw sting....if you cant feel your body sliding left
>or right when your
>uncoordinated, you should probably relax some, because
>you are way too
>uptight. But then again one of my coaches said I was
>too relaxed. On
>that note my Discus 2ax didn't have a yaw sting, and
>my Nimbus 3
>doesn't have one either, and I probably won't get it
>'fixed' before the
>Opens. I fly in the mountains and I don't feel that
>it is hazardous.
>Plus that sting is way too much drag.
>
I defy anyone to 'feel' the tiny amount of yaw that
a yaw string will indicate. The drag created by even
the largest piece of wool will be very small compared
to even a small amout of yaw in straight and level
flight. A 'T&S' ball is just not sensitive enough and
the yaw string has the advantage of being in your eye
line, you don't have to go heads down to see it. To
fly efficiently in a big winged glider is is even more
essential as even tiny amoutns of control differences
are magnified with the addition leverage of long wings.

[Bill Daniels]

"Don Johnstone" > wrote in message
...
> At 06:42 08 July 2006, G L I D E R S T U D wrote:
>>
>>Yaw sting....if you cant feel your body sliding left
>>or right when your
>>uncoordinated, you should probably relax some, because
>>you are way too
>>uptight. But then again one of my coaches said I was
>>too relaxed. On
>>that note my Discus 2ax didn't have a yaw sting, and
>>my Nimbus 3
>>doesn't have one either, and I probably won't get it
>>'fixed' before the
>>Opens. I fly in the mountains and I don't feel that
>>it is hazardous.
>>Plus that sting is way too much drag.
>>
> I defy anyone to 'feel' the tiny amount of yaw that
> a yaw string will indicate. The drag created by even
> the largest piece of wool will be very small compared
> to even a small amout of yaw in straight and level
> flight. A 'T&S' ball is just not sensitive enough and
> the yaw string has the advantage of being in your eye
> line, you don't have to go heads down to see it. To
> fly efficiently in a big winged glider is is even more
> essential as even tiny amoutns of control differences
> are magnified with the addition leverage of long wings.
>

To Don Johnstone - Yep!

The weather is doing something it hasn't done in quite a while - raining -
therefore, I'm spending the weekend indoors. This has led me to research a
few ideas that I had set aside. One of them is an angle of attack indicator
for gliders.

Any reading of accident reports will quickly lead one to the conclusion that
pilots don't pay enough attention to AOA. No matter how hard AOA is
hammered into a students brain, a few months after their checkride, they
just watch the ASI. Some of them are involved in stall/spin accidents.

AOA indicators have long been essential to the safe operation of large
aircraft so, now that electronics are cheap, why not gliders too? Gliders
spend a lot of time flying near the stall AOA so we shoud be especially
interested in an AOA indicator.

So, how do we measure AOA? The traditional nose boom pitch vane is too
fragile for gliders but there is another way to get AOA data. Companies
like Masi make a simple AOA probes. See:
http://www.cgmasi.com/aviation/index.html

The Masi probe computes AOA from the pressure difference between two
pressure ports at 45 degrees to the airflow. Could the same be done with
pressure ports located on upper and lower nose? I think so. An inexpensive
differential pressure sensor and a bit of electronics driving an LED
lightbar plus a calibration proceedure would do it.

The calilbration procedure would be simple since we are only interested in
three AOA's - Stall, Minimum sink, and Best L/D. These would be very
helpful when flying gliders with a wide range of wing loadings. The min
sink AOA would be particularly helpful when flying at steep bank angles.

Gliders with flaps would have to repeat the calibration procedure for each
flap setting of interest - those being approach flaps and thermalling flaps.
Flap setting would have to be sent to the AOA conputer.

Any gadgeteers out there interested in making a few bucks awhile maybe
saving a few lives?

Bill Daniels

[MS]

The last thing I want is another instrument. I enjoy gliding because I
can fly by visual references and only use the instruments to glance at
occasionally.


Bill Daniels wrote:
> "Don Johnstone" > wrote in message
> ...
> > At 06:42 08 July 2006, G L I D E R S T U D wrote:
> >>
> >>Yaw sting....if you cant feel your body sliding left
> >>or right when your
> >>uncoordinated, you should probably relax some, because
> >>you are way too
> >>uptight. But then again one of my coaches said I was
> >>too relaxed. On
> >>that note my Discus 2ax didn't have a yaw sting, and
> >>my Nimbus 3
> >>doesn't have one either, and I probably won't get it
> >>'fixed' before the
> >>Opens. I fly in the mountains and I don't feel that
> >>it is hazardous.
> >>Plus that sting is way too much drag.
> >>
> > I defy anyone to 'feel' the tiny amount of yaw that
> > a yaw string will indicate. The drag created by even
> > the largest piece of wool will be very small compared
> > to even a small amout of yaw in straight and level
> > flight. A 'T&S' ball is just not sensitive enough and
> > the yaw string has the advantage of being in your eye
> > line, you don't have to go heads down to see it. To
> > fly efficiently in a big winged glider is is even more
> > essential as even tiny amoutns of control differences
> > are magnified with the addition leverage of long wings.
> >
>
> To Don Johnstone - Yep!
>
> The weather is doing something it hasn't done in quite a while - raining -
> therefore, I'm spending the weekend indoors. This has led me to research a
> few ideas that I had set aside. One of them is an angle of attack indicator
> for gliders.
>
> Any reading of accident reports will quickly lead one to the conclusion that
> pilots don't pay enough attention to AOA. No matter how hard AOA is
> hammered into a students brain, a few months after their checkride, they
> just watch the ASI. Some of them are involved in stall/spin accidents.
>
> AOA indicators have long been essential to the safe operation of large
> aircraft so, now that electronics are cheap, why not gliders too? Gliders
> spend a lot of time flying near the stall AOA so we shoud be especially
> interested in an AOA indicator.
>
> So, how do we measure AOA? The traditional nose boom pitch vane is too
> fragile for gliders but there is another way to get AOA data. Companies
> like Masi make a simple AOA probes. See:
> http://www.cgmasi.com/aviation/index.html
>
> The Masi probe computes AOA from the pressure difference between two
> pressure ports at 45 degrees to the airflow. Could the same be done with
> pressure ports located on upper and lower nose? I think so. An inexpensive
> differential pressure sensor and a bit of electronics driving an LED
> lightbar plus a calibration proceedure would do it.
>
> The calilbration procedure would be simple since we are only interested in
> three AOA's - Stall, Minimum sink, and Best L/D. These would be very
> helpful when flying gliders with a wide range of wing loadings. The min
> sink AOA would be particularly helpful when flying at steep bank angles.
>
> Gliders with flaps would have to repeat the calibration procedure for each
> flap setting of interest - those being approach flaps and thermalling flaps.
> Flap setting would have to be sent to the AOA conputer.
>
> Any gadgeteers out there interested in making a few bucks awhile maybe
> saving a few lives?
>
> Bill Daniels

[Bullwinkle]

On 7/9/06 11:27 AM, in article ,
"Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:

>
> "Don Johnstone" > wrote in message
> ...
>> At 06:42 08 July 2006, G L I D E R S T U D wrote:
>>>
>>> Yaw sting....if you cant feel your body sliding left
>>> or right when your
>>> uncoordinated, you should probably relax some, because
>>> you are way too
>>> uptight. But then again one of my coaches said I was
>>> too relaxed. On
>>> that note my Discus 2ax didn't have a yaw sting, and
>>> my Nimbus 3
>>> doesn't have one either, and I probably won't get it
>>> 'fixed' before the
>>> Opens. I fly in the mountains and I don't feel that
>>> it is hazardous.
>>> Plus that sting is way too much drag.
>>>
>> I defy anyone to 'feel' the tiny amount of yaw that
>> a yaw string will indicate. The drag created by even
>> the largest piece of wool will be very small compared
>> to even a small amout of yaw in straight and level
>> flight. A 'T&S' ball is just not sensitive enough and
>> the yaw string has the advantage of being in your eye
>> line, you don't have to go heads down to see it. To
>> fly efficiently in a big winged glider is is even more
>> essential as even tiny amoutns of control differences
>> are magnified with the addition leverage of long wings.
>>
>
> To Don Johnstone - Yep!
>
> The weather is doing something it hasn't done in quite a while - raining -
> therefore, I'm spending the weekend indoors. This has led me to research a
> few ideas that I had set aside. One of them is an angle of attack indicator
> for gliders.
>
> Any reading of accident reports will quickly lead one to the conclusion that
> pilots don't pay enough attention to AOA. No matter how hard AOA is
> hammered into a students brain, a few months after their checkride, they
> just watch the ASI. Some of them are involved in stall/spin accidents.
>
> AOA indicators have long been essential to the safe operation of large
> aircraft so, now that electronics are cheap, why not gliders too? Gliders
> spend a lot of time flying near the stall AOA so we shoud be especially
> interested in an AOA indicator.
>
> So, how do we measure AOA? The traditional nose boom pitch vane is too
> fragile for gliders but there is another way to get AOA data. Companies
> like Masi make a simple AOA probes. See:
> http://www.cgmasi.com/aviation/index.html
>
> The Masi probe computes AOA from the pressure difference between two
> pressure ports at 45 degrees to the airflow. Could the same be done with
> pressure ports located on upper and lower nose? I think so. An inexpensive
> differential pressure sensor and a bit of electronics driving an LED
> lightbar plus a calibration proceedure would do it.
>
> The calilbration procedure would be simple since we are only interested in
> three AOA's - Stall, Minimum sink, and Best L/D. These would be very
> helpful when flying gliders with a wide range of wing loadings. The min
> sink AOA would be particularly helpful when flying at steep bank angles.
>
> Gliders with flaps would have to repeat the calibration procedure for each
> flap setting of interest - those being approach flaps and thermalling flaps.
> Flap setting would have to be sent to the AOA conputer.
>
> Any gadgeteers out there interested in making a few bucks awhile maybe
> saving a few lives?
>
> Bill Daniels
>
>
Bill,

Two or three pilots at Black Forest have very inexpensive AOA indicators
installed. They have yawstrings taped to the canopy way down the sides,
adjacent to their thighs, basically at the junction of the canopy and the
frame.

They then make marks with grease pencil at the crucial airspeeds, and report
being happy as clams with it.

Haven't tried it myself. YMMV.

Bullwinkle

[Bill Daniels]

"Bullwinkle" > wrote in message
...
> On 7/9/06 11:27 AM, in article
> ,
> "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Don Johnstone" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> At 06:42 08 July 2006, G L I D E R S T U D wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yaw sting....if you cant feel your body sliding left
>>>> or right when your
>>>> uncoordinated, you should probably relax some, because
>>>> you are way too
>>>> uptight. But then again one of my coaches said I was
>>>> too relaxed. On
>>>> that note my Discus 2ax didn't have a yaw sting, and
>>>> my Nimbus 3
>>>> doesn't have one either, and I probably won't get it
>>>> 'fixed' before the
>>>> Opens. I fly in the mountains and I don't feel that
>>>> it is hazardous.
>>>> Plus that sting is way too much drag.
>>>>
>>> I defy anyone to 'feel' the tiny amount of yaw that
>>> a yaw string will indicate. The drag created by even
>>> the largest piece of wool will be very small compared
>>> to even a small amout of yaw in straight and level
>>> flight. A 'T&S' ball is just not sensitive enough and
>>> the yaw string has the advantage of being in your eye
>>> line, you don't have to go heads down to see it. To
>>> fly efficiently in a big winged glider is is even more
>>> essential as even tiny amoutns of control differences
>>> are magnified with the addition leverage of long wings.
>>>
>>
>> To Don Johnstone - Yep!
>>
>> The weather is doing something it hasn't done in quite a while -
>> raining -
>> therefore, I'm spending the weekend indoors. This has led me to research
>> a
>> few ideas that I had set aside. One of them is an angle of attack
>> indicator
>> for gliders.
>>
>> Any reading of accident reports will quickly lead one to the conclusion
>> that
>> pilots don't pay enough attention to AOA. No matter how hard AOA is
>> hammered into a students brain, a few months after their checkride, they
>> just watch the ASI. Some of them are involved in stall/spin accidents.
>>
>> AOA indicators have long been essential to the safe operation of large
>> aircraft so, now that electronics are cheap, why not gliders too?
>> Gliders
>> spend a lot of time flying near the stall AOA so we shoud be especially
>> interested in an AOA indicator.
>>
>> So, how do we measure AOA? The traditional nose boom pitch vane is too
>> fragile for gliders but there is another way to get AOA data. Companies
>> like Masi make a simple AOA probes. See:
>> http://www.cgmasi.com/aviation/index.html
>>
>> The Masi probe computes AOA from the pressure difference between two
>> pressure ports at 45 degrees to the airflow. Could the same be done with
>> pressure ports located on upper and lower nose? I think so. An
>> inexpensive
>> differential pressure sensor and a bit of electronics driving an LED
>> lightbar plus a calibration proceedure would do it.
>>
>> The calilbration procedure would be simple since we are only interested
>> in
>> three AOA's - Stall, Minimum sink, and Best L/D. These would be very
>> helpful when flying gliders with a wide range of wing loadings. The min
>> sink AOA would be particularly helpful when flying at steep bank angles.
>>
>> Gliders with flaps would have to repeat the calibration procedure for
>> each
>> flap setting of interest - those being approach flaps and thermalling
>> flaps.
>> Flap setting would have to be sent to the AOA conputer.
>>
>> Any gadgeteers out there interested in making a few bucks awhile maybe
>> saving a few lives?
>>
>> Bill Daniels
>>
>>
> Bill,
>
> Two or three pilots at Black Forest have very inexpensive AOA indicators
> installed. They have yawstrings taped to the canopy way down the sides,
> adjacent to their thighs, basically at the junction of the canopy and the
> frame.
>
> They then make marks with grease pencil at the crucial airspeeds, and
> report
> being happy as clams with it.
>
> Haven't tried it myself. YMMV.
>
> Bullwinkle
>

I've done that going back several years. It works fine but those darn
strings keep getting caught under the canopy frame when you close it and
some gliders don't have canopies that allow proper placement of the strings.
Also, it only works at a zero slip angle. An electronic AOA system shouldn't
cost much but, of course, it'll cost more than strings.

bildan

[Marc Ramsey]

Bill Daniels wrote:
> I've done that going back several years. It works fine but those darn
> strings keep getting caught under the canopy frame when you close it and
> some gliders don't have canopies that allow proper placement of the strings.
> Also, it only works at a zero slip angle. An electronic AOA system shouldn't
> cost much but, of course, it'll cost more than strings.

I suspect that surface ports on the top and bottom of the nose will also
only work at zero slip/skid angle. My DG-600 was factory equipped with
an AoA meter, using two cross-connected sets of surface ports on the
fuselage just above the wing roots. One set is just aft of the leading
edge, another set is about 60% aft. The meter is a modified electronic
variometer. I've never had the meter in my panel, so I don't know how
well it works. One of these days, I'm going to connect a low pressure
differential transducer between the two sets of ports, and see if I can
get any usable data.

Marc

[Bill Daniels]

"Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> I suspect that surface ports on the top and bottom of the nose will also
> only work at zero slip/skid angle. > Marc

Why would that be?

If both top and bottom ports are on the center line they should be equally
influenced by slip/skid induced crossflow. You'd just be measuring the
pressure difference between the ports not the absolute pressure.

BTW, the guys at Black Forrest with pitch strings report they give advanced
warning of lift so zooms can start a few seconds sooner. An electronic AOA
indicator should do the same. Seems an AOA indicator is both a safety
device and a performance boon.

Bill Daniels

[Marc Ramsey]

Bill Daniels wrote:
> "Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
> . com...
>> I suspect that surface ports on the top and bottom of the nose will also
>> only work at zero slip/skid angle. > Marc
>
> Why would that be?
>
> If both top and bottom ports are on the center line they should be equally
> influenced by slip/skid induced crossflow. You'd just be measuring the
> pressure difference between the ports not the absolute pressure.

I'm only engaging in standard usenet-style uninformed speculation, but
I'm guessing that the flow around the nose is altered such that the
pressure differential would no longer be consistent with the angle of
attack. Also, if putting two ports on the nose was adequate, why did DG
go to the trouble of putting 4 ports above the wings?

Marc

[Bill Daniels]

"Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
.com...

> I'm only engaging in standard usenet-style uninformed speculation, but I'm
> guessing that the flow around the nose is altered such that the pressure
> differential would no longer be consistent with the angle of attack.
> Also, if putting two ports on the nose was adequate, why did DG go to the
> trouble of putting 4 ports above the wings?
>
> Marc

Like you, I'm only guesssing but it might be the DG system was intended to
be a stall warner rather than an AOA indicator although I grant the
difference is small. Ports on top of the wing might sense the progression
of flow separation at the root as a stall begins.

There's a probe call the "BAT" which presets a hemesphere with a ring of
pressure ports to the airflow. A computer collects the pressure data from
each port and outputs the Alpha/Beta angles as well as turbulence data.
See: http://www.atdd.noaa.gov/Research_Page_Additions/BATWEB/batweb.htm

[Martin Gregorie[_1_]]

Bullwinkle wrote:
> They then make marks with grease pencil at the crucial airspeeds, and report
> being happy as clams with it.
>
There's something I've always wondered: why are clams happy in America?

And is this happy clam a shellfish or a cult member?


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Marc Ramsey]

Bill Daniels wrote:
> Like you, I'm only guesssing but it might be the DG system was intended to
> be a stall warner rather than an AOA indicator although I grant the
> difference is small. Ports on top of the wing might sense the progression
> of flow separation at the root as a stall begins.

It does provide a stall warning function (not that the glider
particularly needs one), but it was also intended to be used to indicate
AoA for purposes of optimizing the flap settings. The calibration
procedure is clearly aimed at establishing both the high and low ends of
the optimal AoA range.

Marc

[bumper]

Mostly because it conjures up a nicer mental image than being, "Happier than
a pig in a waller".

Or I ain't had this much fun since the hogs ate my little brother.


--
bumper ZZ (reverse all after @)>
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
"Martin Gregorie" > wrote in message
...
> Bullwinkle wrote:
>> They then make marks with grease pencil at the crucial airspeeds, and
>> report
>> being happy as clams with it.
>>
> There's something I've always wondered: why are clams happy in America?
>
> And is this happy clam a shellfish or a cult member?
>
>
> --
> martin@ | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org |

[Mike the Strike]

> There's something I've always wondered: why are clams happy in America?
>
> And is this happy clam a shellfish or a cult member?

The expression is totally American and originated in about the 1830's
in New England. The original is often quoted as "Happy as clams at
high tide" or similar. That's when it's difficult to dig them up and
eat them!

I also experimented with extra canopy strings (I had to buy about 4,000
feet of red yarn to replace a lost string, so have plenty spare). They
were for ever getting trapped in the canopy and even when free weren't
that useful. Anyone need 3,900 feet of red yarn?

Mike

[Don Johnstone]

Sorry Bill not knocking your suggestion which is technically
sound but, ASI,Altimeter, 2 varios, turn and slip,
AH, compass, FLARM, transponder, radio, ELT, GPS, Palm
Top, Anti collision strobe, AoA meter, logger, data
link and batteries to power the above. I need a bigger
glider or perhaps dispense with the pilot :-)

At 21:42 09 July 2006, Bill Daniels wrote:
>
>'Marc Ramsey' wrote in message
. com...
>>
>> I suspect that surface ports on the top and bottom
>>of the nose will also
>> only work at zero slip/skid angle. > Marc
>
>Why would that be?
>
>If both top and bottom ports are on the center line
>they should be equally
>influenced by slip/skid induced crossflow. You'd just
>be measuring the
>pressure difference between the ports not the absolute
>pressure.
>
>BTW, the guys at Black Forrest with pitch strings report
>they give advanced
>warning of lift so zooms can start a few seconds sooner.
> An electronic AOA
>indicator should do the same. Seems an AOA indicator
>is both a safety
>device and a performance boon.
>
>Bill Daniels
>
>
>

[Ralph Jones]

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 00:40:42 +0100, Martin Gregorie
> wrote:

>Bullwinkle wrote:
>> They then make marks with grease pencil at the crucial airspeeds, and report
>> being happy as clams with it.
>>
>There's something I've always wondered: why are clams happy in America?
>
We have a whelk shortage.

rj

[Bullwinkle]

On 7/10/06 6:49 PM, in article ,
"Ralph Jones" > wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 00:40:42 +0100, Martin Gregorie
> > wrote:
>
>> Bullwinkle wrote:
>>> They then make marks with grease pencil at the crucial airspeeds, and report
>>> being happy as clams with it.
>>>
>> There's something I've always wondered: why are clams happy in America?
>>
> We have a whelk shortage.
>
> rj

To make things more understandable for non-USA RAS readers, I will rephrase
my analogy to make it more understandable for all:

"...and report being happy as Brits insulting the USA on July 4th."

There. Clearer now?
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
And yes, this was just a joke about another non-soaring thread being kept
alive by morons in RAS, which was started by a (no doubt) atypical Brit.

Bullwinkle
Colonel, US Army (retired)

[Eric Greenwell[_1_]]

Marc Ramsey wrote:
> Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> I don't think it's a good thing for student pilots, but how about the
>> licensed pilot flying cross-country? Would outlandings be safer if
>> pilots used the AGL information? I already do so to some extent, when
>> I use the "make waypoint here" feature over a good outlanding field,
>> then use that waypoint as my "target" for the glide computer.
>
> I've been working with digital terrain elevation data since the mid-80s.
> There are noticeable errors in some of the publicly available source
> data. Fitting data for a usable area into the memory available in a PDA
> requires a reduction in resolution. One also needs to consider the
> possibility of significant GPS altitude errors. This data is fine for
> drawing maps and getting a general idea of the height of the terrain,
> but, in my opinion, depending on it for flying a pattern into an
> unfamiliar field would be a mistake...

Marc is quite correct, and I should have mentioned I usually add 500
feet to my reserve to mitigate the problems he mentions; also, I
normally use it over relatively level terrain where the 2D resolution
wouldn't be important, and it's been accurate enough. I don't exactly
use it to fly a pattern, but just to get me back to the field high
enough to set up a pattern in the usual fashion - "that looks about right".

Now I'm curious about the accuracy of the terrain data used in my pda,
which runs SeeYou Mobile. I know SeeYou itself uses "relatively
accurrate" data now after the change (last year?) to data downloaded
from the Internet as needed, and SeeYou's terrain data is used to
produce the terrain data for the pda.

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

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"