Cloud Flying - Experimental [Archive]

February 5th 07, 11:19 PM

On Feb 5, 4:22 pm, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
> Hmm, Mine says "Spins prohibited". However, with the fixed stab, it's a
> very stable, spin resistent platform so I don't see why not. Most of the
> airplanes I flew IMC were "Spin prohibited" too - never spun one IMC.
>
> Bill Daniels
>
> "Tim Taylor" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
> > On Feb 5, 12:57 pm, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
> >> My Nimbus 2C does. It's expressly stated in the POH and the
> >> certification
> >> (Experimentat EX&R)
>
> >> Of course, getting the proper logbook signoffs for a "gyro panel" is
> >> somethng else.
>
> >> Bill Daniels
>
> > But the real question is would you want to fly a Nimbus 2 in those
> > conditions? Mine was a handful in a spin, not sure I would want to
> > try it in IMC.
>
> > Tim

yea the experimental exhibition and racing is different as it has a
POH which allows cloud flying. With amatuer built I must somehow
prove that it is safe to take the glider into clouds. Finding the
standards to prove it against has proven difficult, but I got my copy
of the Basic Glider Criteria handbook and it is looking promising.

Funny how pure glider pilots seem to think that any encounter with
clouds must result in an immediate loss of control. Properly
instrumented and most importantly, properly trained, it really is no
problem. Twins, Airliners, and even many single engine planes that
are not certified for spins fly in IMC every day with no problems.

news.nildram.co.uk

February 5th 07, 11:43 PM

The issue isn't spinning. In fact, holding the glider in a spin may well be
the best way of exiting a cloud after losing control. Even if the glider
isn't cleared for spinning there's a good chance you won't have a problem if
you carry out a proper spin recovery once you are well clear of the cloud.

The real danger is the combination of over-speeding and simultaneously
pulling excessive g in an attempt to recover control of the glider while
there is no pitch reference.

David Starer

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Feb 5, 4:22 pm, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
>> Hmm, Mine says "Spins prohibited". However, with the fixed stab, it's a
>> very stable, spin resistent platform so I don't see why not. Most of the
>> airplanes I flew IMC were "Spin prohibited" too - never spun one IMC.
>>
>> Bill Daniels
>>
>> "Tim Taylor" > wrote in message
>>
>> oups.com...
>>
>> > On Feb 5, 12:57 pm, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
>> >> My Nimbus 2C does. It's expressly stated in the POH and the
>> >> certification
>> >> (Experimentat EX&R)
>>
>> >> Of course, getting the proper logbook signoffs for a "gyro panel" is
>> >> somethng else.
>>
>> >> Bill Daniels
>>
>> > But the real question is would you want to fly a Nimbus 2 in those
>> > conditions? Mine was a handful in a spin, not sure I would want to
>> > try it in IMC.
>>
>> > Tim
>
> yea the experimental exhibition and racing is different as it has a
> POH which allows cloud flying. With amatuer built I must somehow
> prove that it is safe to take the glider into clouds. Finding the
> standards to prove it against has proven difficult, but I got my copy
> of the Basic Glider Criteria handbook and it is looking promising.
>
> Funny how pure glider pilots seem to think that any encounter with
> clouds must result in an immediate loss of control. Properly
> instrumented and most importantly, properly trained, it really is no
> problem. Twins, Airliners, and even many single engine planes that
> are not certified for spins fly in IMC every day with no problems.
>

David Starer

February 5th 07, 11:45 PM

Eric Greenwell

February 6th 07, 03:11 AM

wrote:

> Funny how pure glider pilots

"Glider only" ratings, you mean? Usually, "pure" means no motor in the
glider.

> seem to think that any encounter with
> clouds must result in an immediate loss of control. Properly
> instrumented and most importantly, properly trained,

Kind of begs the question, doesn't? "You won't have problems if you do
everything right".

> it really is no
> problem.

Turbulence, icing, lightning, hypoxia, other gliders and airplanes - no
problem?

> Twins, Airliners, and even many single engine planes that
> are not certified for spins fly in IMC every day with no problems.

How much thermalling near stall do they do ;>) ? And isn't flight into
IMC where lots of those single engine planes have the most problems?

I'm looking forward to Shawn's presentation at the convention. I've read
many of the stories from the older Sailplane and Gliding magazines about
cloud flight back before GPS, and it sounded like a quite an adventure.
I particularly enjoyed the ones that had sentences like this: "As I
exited the cloud at 14,000', I looked down to see nothing but water...".

Usually meant the English Channel. Not a happy place in a 30:1 glider
with iced up wings.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[email protected]

February 6th 07, 06:50 AM

> "Glider only" ratings, you mean? Usually, "pure" means no motor in the
> glider.

yea sorry about that, you know what i meant.
>
> > seem to think that any encounter with
> > clouds must result in an immediate loss of control. Properly
> > instrumented and most importantly, properly trained,
>
> Kind of begs the question, doesn't? "You won't have problems if you do
> everything right".

Yep.

> > it really is no
> > problem.
>
> Turbulence, icing, lightning, hypoxia, other gliders and airplanes - no
> problem?

Well this is where cloud flying has gotten its bad rap. Turbulence is
a given, its going to be there in almost any type of soaring you do.
Icing is avoidable, Lightning is avoidable. Im not talking about
using a Tstorm to get diamond altitude a la Piggot. Ive got a
stronger self preservation gene than that. Hypoxia is avoidable.
There is a way to be smart about this type of operation.
Unfortunately it seems that the ones who perhaps havent been quite so
much have spoiled it for the rest of us.
>
> > Twins, Airliners, and even many single engine planes that
> > are not certified for spins fly in IMC every day with no problems.
>
> How much thermalling near stall do they do ;>) ? And isn't flight into
> IMC where lots of those single engine planes have the most problems?

haha very clever. This goes back to being smart about the operation.
typical flying speeds in cloud are higher, in fact much higher than
normal thermalling speeds. for one thing the lift is so much stronger
that the low speed really isnt necessary. second, and most
importantly it gives you a good cushion on stalling. And the power
traffic regularly slows to within 1.3 times the stall speed on
approach. Id say that most of the problems "those single engine
planes" encounter during IMC are pilot problems, not airplane.

> I'm looking forward to Shawn's presentation at the convention. I've read
> many of the stories from the older Sailplane and Gliding magazines about
> cloud flight back before GPS, and it sounded like a quite an adventure.
> I particularly enjoyed the ones that had sentences like this: "As I
> exited the cloud at 14,000', I looked down to see nothing but water...".
>
> Usually meant the English Channel. Not a happy place in a 30:1 glider
> with iced up wings.

Can't wait to meet you there.

Tony
2000 miles from any water that a ice cube couldnt glide across

[email protected]

February 6th 07, 07:51 AM

On Feb 5, 10:50 pm, wrote:
> > "Glider only" ratings, you mean? Usually, "pure" means no motor in the
> > glider.
>
> yea sorry about that, you know what i meant.
>
>
>
> > > seem to think that any encounter with
> > > clouds must result in an immediate loss of control. Properly
> > > instrumented and most importantly, properly trained,
>
> > Kind of begs the question, doesn't? "You won't have problems if you do
> > everything right".
>
> Yep.
>
> > > it really is no
> > > problem.
>
> > Turbulence, icing, lightning, hypoxia, other gliders and airplanes - no
> > problem?
>
> Well this is where cloud flying has gotten its bad rap. Turbulence is
> a given, its going to be there in almost any type of soaring you do.
> Icing is avoidable, Lightning is avoidable. Im not talking about
> using a Tstorm to get diamond altitude a la Piggot. Ive got a
> stronger self preservation gene than that. Hypoxia is avoidable.
> There is a way to be smart about this type of operation.
> Unfortunately it seems that the ones who perhaps havent been quite so
> much have spoiled it for the rest of us.
>
>

You have to remember that Eric is to soaring what the little old lady
driving in the short 405themovie is when you are replying to him ;)

http://www.405themovie.com/Images/Photos/Full/52Co0025.JPG
http://www.405themovie.com/Images/Photos/Full/Sc0021.JPG

Let the flame wars begin LOL

Roll on summer...

Cheers

Al

Bert Willing

February 6th 07, 08:17 AM

I don't think that you want to try this in a 25m+ glider.

"David Starer" <DavidAtStarerDotCoDotUk> wrote in message
...
> The issue isn't spinning. In fact, holding the glider in a spin may well
> be
> the best way of exiting a cloud after losing control. Even if the glider
> isn't cleared for spinning there's a good chance you won't have a problem
> if
> you carry out a proper spin recovery once you are well clear of the cloud.
>
> The real danger is the combination of over-speeding and simultaneously
> pulling excessive g in an attempt to recover control of the glider while
> there is no pitch reference.
>
> David Starer
>
>
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> On Feb 5, 4:22 pm, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
>>> Hmm, Mine says "Spins prohibited". However, with the fixed stab, it's a
>>> very stable, spin resistent platform so I don't see why not. Most of
>>> the
>>> airplanes I flew IMC were "Spin prohibited" too - never spun one IMC.
>>>
>>> Bill Daniels
>>>
>>> "Tim Taylor" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> oups.com...
>>>
>>> > On Feb 5, 12:57 pm, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
>>> >> My Nimbus 2C does. It's expressly stated in the POH and the
>>> >> certification
>>> >> (Experimentat EX&R)
>>>
>>> >> Of course, getting the proper logbook signoffs for a "gyro panel" is
>>> >> somethng else.
>>>
>>> >> Bill Daniels
>>>
>>> > But the real question is would you want to fly a Nimbus 2 in those
>>> > conditions? Mine was a handful in a spin, not sure I would want to
>>> > try it in IMC.
>>>
>>> > Tim
>>
>> yea the experimental exhibition and racing is different as it has a
>> POH which allows cloud flying. With amatuer built I must somehow
>> prove that it is safe to take the glider into clouds. Finding the
>> standards to prove it against has proven difficult, but I got my copy
>> of the Basic Glider Criteria handbook and it is looking promising.
>>
>> Funny how pure glider pilots seem to think that any encounter with
>> clouds must result in an immediate loss of control. Properly
>> instrumented and most importantly, properly trained, it really is no
>> problem. Twins, Airliners, and even many single engine planes that
>> are not certified for spins fly in IMC every day with no problems.
>>
>

Derek Copeland

February 6th 07, 01:41 PM

Most gliders are certified for cloud flying in the
UK, but then we have much more cloud than most countries.
I used to own a Nimbus 2 (all flying tailplane version)
and cloud climbed it on a number of occasions without
difficulty, using an artificial horizon and a turn
and slip indicator. However I had been trained to blind
fly in light aircraft first. Don't do it without getting
some training first! Also don't circle within 10 knots
of the stall speed in cloud.

Derek Copeland

At 20:42 05 February 2007, Tim Taylor wrote:
>On Feb 5, 12:57 pm, 'Bill Daniels' wrote:
>> My Nimbus 2C does. It's expressly stated in the POH
>>and the certification
>> (Experimentat EX&R)
>>
>> Of course, getting the proper logbook signoffs for
>>a 'gyro panel' is
>> somethng else.
>>
>> Bill Daniels
>>
>But the real question is would you want to fly a Nimbus
>2 in those
>conditions? Mine was a handful in a spin, not sure
>I would want to
>try it in IMC.
>
>Tim
>
>
>

Ian Cant

February 6th 07, 03:42 PM

Tony,
I think we'd all agree that with sensible
speed control and suitable instruments, then inadvertent
spinning is not very likely or even particularly dangerous.
However, before going into that cloud I'd think twice
about other things - other gliders doing the same thing,
other power traffic flying IFR, and the possible violence
of the turbulence. Using a nice little isolated summer
CU or descending through a thin high layer is one kind
of situation, entering a large CuNim or extensive stratus
near the deck would be quite another. The FAA's opinion
in a day-VFR-only Experimental might also influence
your decisions.

Good luck,

Ian

At 13:42 06 February 2007, Derek Copeland wrote:
>Most gliders are certified for cloud flying in the
>UK, but then we have much more cloud than most countries.
>I used to own a Nimbus 2 (all flying tailplane version)
>and cloud climbed it on a number of occasions without
>difficulty, using an artificial horizon and a turn
>and slip indicator. However I had been trained to blind
>fly in light aircraft first. Don't do it without getting
>some training first! Also don't circle within 10 knots
>of the stall speed in cloud.
>
>Derek Copeland
>
>At 20:42 05 February 2007, Tim Taylor wrote:
>>On Feb 5, 12:57 pm, 'Bill Daniels' wrote:
>>> My Nimbus 2C does. It's expressly stated in the POH
>>>and the certification
>>> (Experimentat EX&R)
>>>
>>> Of course, getting the proper logbook signoffs for
>>>a 'gyro panel' is
>>> somethng else.
>>>
>>> Bill Daniels
>>>
>>But the real question is would you want to fly a Nimbus
>>2 in those
>>conditions? Mine was a handful in a spin, not sure
>>I would want to
>>try it in IMC.
>>
>>Tim
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

Bill Daniels

February 6th 07, 04:03 PM

It's hard to have an informed discussion between instrument rated pilots and
non-instrument rated pilots since the difference in training is huge.
Getting an instrument rating is probably the hardest rating to get. I've
been thold that the ATP is easier. I'm not dissing non-instrument rated
pilots, just pointing out that there's a LOT of very specialized training
involved in getting an instrument ticket.

Most people taking instrument training have thought to themselves, "This is
too hard - humans just aren't supposed to be able to do this". Somehow,
most persevere and get their ratings. Eventually, instrument attitude
flying is learned to the point it feels as nautral as blue sky VMC.
Actually, I know pilots who feel very uncomfortable flying visually.
(Instrument pilot sits in glider and asks, "Where the hell is the attitude
indicator?" Glider pilot replies, "We use the big one in the sky")

The point is that flight under IMC can be done safely by a well trained
pilot. It's not the equipment, it's the pilot that makes the difference.
Almost all accidents under IMC are pilots flying perfectly good aircraft
into the ground. They even have a name for it - CFIT (Controled Flight Into
Terrain) Aircraft and the installed instruments have little to do with it
as long as the pilot knows how to use what he has - and knows his own
limitations.

Bill Daniels

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
news:GlSxh.4319$_d4.3848@trndny05...
> wrote:
>
>> Funny how pure glider pilots
>
> "Glider only" ratings, you mean? Usually, "pure" means no motor in the
> glider.
>
>> seem to think that any encounter with
>> clouds must result in an immediate loss of control. Properly
>> instrumented and most importantly, properly trained,
>
> Kind of begs the question, doesn't? "You won't have problems if you do
> everything right".
>
>> it really is no
>> problem.
>
> Turbulence, icing, lightning, hypoxia, other gliders and airplanes - no
> problem?
>
>> Twins, Airliners, and even many single engine planes that
>> are not certified for spins fly in IMC every day with no problems.
>
> How much thermalling near stall do they do ;>) ? And isn't flight into IMC
> where lots of those single engine planes have the most problems?
>
> I'm looking forward to Shawn's presentation at the convention. I've read
> many of the stories from the older Sailplane and Gliding magazines about
> cloud flight back before GPS, and it sounded like a quite an adventure. I
> particularly enjoyed the ones that had sentences like this: "As I exited
> the cloud at 14,000', I looked down to see nothing but water...".
>
> Usually meant the English Channel. Not a happy place in a 30:1 glider with
> iced up wings.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
> * "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
> * "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

Dan G

February 6th 07, 05:23 PM

In Britain - where cloud flying is common - you radio your position
and intentions on a set frequency before entering a cloud. (You're
also required to be wearing a parachute.)

As an aside older British gliders were required to have speed-limiting
airbrakes, so if it all went pear-shaped you could open the airbrakes
and eventually fall out the bottom of the cloud at a reasonable
airspeed. My understanding is that more modern gliders have airbrakes
that only limit the speed in a 45deg dive.

Dan

[email protected]

February 6th 07, 06:01 PM

On Feb 6, 10:42 am, Ian Cant >
wrote:
> Tony,
> I think we'd all agree that with sensible
> speed control and suitable instruments, then inadvertent
> spinning is not very likely or even particularly dangerous.
> However, before going into that cloud I'd think twice
> about other things - other gliders doing the same thing,
> other power traffic flying IFR, and the possible violence
> of the turbulence. Using a nice little isolated summer
> CU or descending through a thin high layer is one kind
> of situation, entering a large CuNim or extensive stratus
> near the deck would be quite another. The FAA's opinion
> in a day-VFR-only Experimental might also influence
> your decisions.

With an IFR clearance from ATC, the likelihood of encountering other
traffic inside the Cu is very small. The only other gliders I know of
that fly in cloud, legally or not, are either out west or in florida.
Using nice summer Cu's to practically double my thermalling height is
the reason I am pursuing this. I see diamond distance easily
attainable for the Cherokee with this capability. Not all of can be
super pilots like Jim Hard. Day VFR only is not really the FAA's set
in stone opinion on experimentals. There are quite a few
experimentals that are approved for night and IFR flying if properly
instrumented. I just trained a friend for his instrument rating in
his RV-7A in fact. No worries on the wingspan, 25 meters is over
twice what ive got. I believe it was Gordon Baxter, writer for Flying
Magazine, who said after he got his instrument rating that he decided
"Instrument flying was an unnatural act, probably punishable by god"
As Bill said, every instrument student feels the same way at some
point.

Eric Greenwell

February 6th 07, 09:11 PM

wrote:

>
> You have to remember that Eric is to soaring what the little old lady
> driving in the short 405themovie is when you are replying to him ;)
>
> http://www.405themovie.com/Images/Photos/Full/52Co0025.JPG
> http://www.405themovie.com/Images/Photos/Full/Sc0021.JPG
>
> Let the flame wars begin LOL

Nonsense! I would never give anyone the finger, no matter how richly
they deserved it.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

Steve Hill

February 6th 07, 10:43 PM

Of all the odd topics that come across this newsgroup this one made me
wonder why it's even being discussed??

Simply put, it's illegal. Have a nice day. Why argue amongst ourselves about
something that the FAA specifically states as illegal?
Being one of those types that has spent time flying in the system and
enduring instrument training, I have to say that for the most part, it is
boring as all get-out. We file a flight plan, get picked up, get assigned a
heading and altitude, get told pretty much every move we can make, get
handed off to approach, again vectored for an ILS in most cases and shoot an
approach that most times results in pretty straight forward stuff like
breaking out of the clouds above the MDA or DH and then landing...bank
angles are pretty much always standard rate...very seldom has anything
exciting really occurred while in actual IMC conditions for me at
least...and in general the only things that scare the heck out of you are
when a controller says something to you like..." Aerostar 36 Juliet, you
have unknown traffic 5 miles 11 o'clock, altitude uncertain, fly heading 320
degrees immediately for avoidance"

Now THAT..can be exciting. and scare the crap out of you...So for those of
us in the U.S., I hope we just let the argument die and remember that you
may be jeopardizing someone elses life and safety far more than your own if
you elect to enter IMC conditions illegally, in a glider that may or may not
skin paint on radar for the controllers trying to protect folks in the
system...

Steve.

Bill Daniels

February 6th 07, 10:48 PM

"Steve Hill" > wrote in message
...
> Of all the odd topics that come across this newsgroup this one made me
> wonder why it's even being discussed??
>
> Simply put, it's illegal. Have a nice day. Why argue amongst ourselves
> about
> something that the FAA specifically states as illegal?
>

Got a specific FAR to back up that statement?

Bill Daniels

kirk.stant

February 6th 07, 11:24 PM

On Feb 6, 4:43 pm, Steve Hill >
wrote:
> Of all the odd topics that come across this newsgroup this one made me
> wonder why it's even being discussed??
>
> Simply put, it's illegal. Have a nice day. Why argue amongst ourselves about
> something that the FAA specifically states as illegal?

Steve, cloud flying in a glider is just as illegal as cloud flying in
any aircraft. If you have the equipment, training, rating, and
clearance (where needed, which nowadays is just about anywhere you
would want to do it) it is perfectly legal and safe.

It's just not common in the US mainly because it's not allowed during
contests.

And please don't confuse a glider using a Cu to climb with a
powerplane on an IFR flight - totally different objectives!

I would love to be able to climb up into a Cu and pop out the side -
legally. But I'm not in the situation to get an intrument rating or
the instruments in my glider - that I would have to pull out for every
contest I wanted to go to.

With the advances in electronics, the possibility that my PDA could
become a nice EADI might be enough to change my mind.

It's funny, how the Brits, with horrible airspace restrictions, seem
to manage to let gliders enjoy cloud flying, and we in the US don't,
for the most part.

Probably due to early and excessive exposure to 2-33s....

Kirk
66

Jack[_1_]

February 6th 07, 11:31 PM

Steve Hill wrote:

> Of all the odd topics that come across this newsgroup this one made me
> wonder why it's even being discussed??

#1, because it's poorly understood. And there's just as great a lack of
understanding on one side of the issue as on the other.

#2, because it offers a real kick in the pants for some soaring
achievements when it is properly understood and the equipment, training,
and operation is in accordance with applicable FAR's, and a
knowledgeable assessment of the actual weather conditions is made.

Believe me, we've been through this before, and when we keep the
emotions out of it, and stick to what we do know, not to just what we
think we know, some good comes out of it -- no "arguing" is necessary.

What we don't want to see is some newby going out and trying it by
himself without a clue as to what he's setting himself up for. And by
"newby" I mean anybody who hasn't complied with all the caveats in #2,
above.

> ...remember that you
> may be jeopardizing someone elses life and safety far more than your own if
> you elect to enter IMC conditions illegally....

I see we are already on common ground. ;)

Jack

Steve Hill

February 7th 07, 12:02 AM

I guess my point is...while there are a few guys out there for which this
might actually be plausible as a reality...for most everyone flying a
sailplane it's questionable at best. For every side to the argument, there's
a counter. I live and fly near and in the mountains. The last thing in the
world, you, I or anyone would want to be doing is climbing into Cu, knowing
that the MOCA is higher than you are...what really worries me is when a
"newby" reads something like this and goes..."Whoa...I knew those rules
about remaining clear of the clouds were bogus..." and runs off to try out
their new skill, without any of the requisite training and ends up dead, or
worse...killing someone else.

I'm sure Bill's right. If you have all the approved instruments, and
certificates and the gumption to pull it off...I'm sure you can. Heck they
do in England. I do remember reading in Helmut Reichmann's book about
climbing into a cloud one day at a contest where one minute he was going up
like 2000 fpm and the next going down getting hailed on just as bad...

If the goal is to get more soaring pilots out there and a bigger goal is
keeping them safe, then I believe we have an obligation to not run around
validating what is pretty much agreed to as a good way to get into trouble
in a glider. Maybe it's just me...but the older i get, the more I respect
that adage about leaving cloudbase earlier and moving on to the next...I'll
go back to shutting my mouth.

Steve.

February 7th 07, 12:25 AM

On Feb 6, 5:02 pm, Steve Hill >
wrote:
> ...what really worries me is when a
> "newby" reads something like this and goes..."Whoa...I knew those rules
> about remaining clear of the clouds were bogus..." and runs off to try out
> their new skill, without any of the requisite training and ends up dead, or
> worse...killing someone else.

Replace text in quotes above by pretty much anything we discuss here
and there won't be much to talk about if we follow your rules. ;)

As Jack pointed out, to some folks this is not "a big deal" because
they have all the skills and tools necessary to do it safely. And I
*am* interested in reading about stuff like this, though the only
instrument time I have is a couple hours under the hood while I was
working on my PPL ASEL, because I'm sure I can learn something.

-Tom

Jack[_1_]

February 7th 07, 12:54 AM

Steve Hill wrote:

[....]

> I'm sure Bill's right. If you have all the approved instruments, and
> certificates and the gumption to pull it off...I'm sure you can. Heck they
> do in England.

[....]

Nothing wrong with your pointing out the bad parts, Steve. Ain't nothin'
bogus about safety. It should be understood that there are good parts,
too, when it's legal to soar in cloud.

There is an expressed concern throughout the community about mid-airs,
but it doesn't sound like there is any great rush to install
transponders. The internal dissembling required for an owner to avoid
installing a transponder in his ship season after season is at least as
disturbing as any newby's assumption that he can get away with flying in
cloud.

The use of TPAS and the like is a partial step in the direction of
enhanced traffic avoidance and so cheap that these units ought to be
flying off the shelves. <http://www.zaonflight.com/>

Cumulus <http://www.soarmn.com/cumulus/zaon.htm> and
Wings and Wheels <http://www.wingsandwheels.com/page4.htm>
offer reasonable deals on this type of equipment, and so much else.

Jack

[email protected]

February 7th 07, 02:45 AM

On Feb 6, 7:25 pm, "5Z" > wrote:
> On Feb 6, 5:02 pm, Steve Hill >
> wrote:
>
> > ...what really worries me is when a
> > "newby" reads something like this and goes..."Whoa...I knew those rules
> > about remaining clear of the clouds were bogus..." and runs off to try out
> > their new skill, without any of the requisite training and ends up dead, or
> > worse...killing someone else.
>
> Replace text in quotes above by pretty much anything we discuss here
> and there won't be much to talk about if we follow your rules. ;)
>
> As Jack pointed out, to some folks this is not "a big deal" because
> they have all the skills and tools necessary to do it safely. And I
> *am* interested in reading about stuff like this, though the only
> instrument time I have is a couple hours under the hood while I was
> working on my PPL ASEL, because I'm sure I can learn something.
>
> -Tom

Good! If I can get the glider set up for it Ill make sure to post my
record breaking flights here. Please let the SSA know you would like
to hear more about cloud flying too. They have not been receptive to
having articles written for the magazine on the subject and Shawn has
spent years trying to get a chance to talk at the convention about it.

[email protected]

February 7th 07, 04:27 AM

On Feb 6, 7:54 pm, Jack > wrote:
> Steve Hill wrote:
>
> [....]
>
> > I'm sure Bill's right. If you have all the approved instruments, and
> > certificates and the gumption to pull it off...I'm sure you can. Heck they
> > do in England.
>
> [....]
>
> Nothing wrong with your pointing out the bad parts, Steve. Ain't nothin'
> bogus about safety. It should be understood that there are good parts,
> too, when it's legal to soar in cloud.
>
> There is an expressed concern throughout the community about mid-airs,
> but it doesn't sound like there is any great rush to install
> transponders. The internal dissembling required for an owner to avoid
> installing a transponder in his ship season after season is at least as
> disturbing as any newby's assumption that he can get away with flying in
> cloud.
>
> The use of TPAS and the like is a partial step in the direction of
> enhanced traffic avoidance and so cheap that these units ought to be
> flying off the shelves. <http://www.zaonflight.com/>
>
> Cumulus <http://www.soarmn.com/cumulus/zaon.htm> and
> Wings and Wheels <http://www.wingsandwheels.com/page4.htm>
> offer reasonable deals on this type of equipment, and so much else.
>
> Jack

Some of us got into this sport because its (supposed to be) cheap. I
know, I know, How much is your life worth? But the fact is, I own a
glider because I dont have any money left. Cause and effect at its
finest. the threat of mid airs are evident in any type of flying.
Obviously the guys flying in high density traffic areas (not central
iowa) ahve more to worry about than others.

Of course if you have a transponder, you best turn it on, other wise
you become cream of business jet.

Derek Copeland

February 7th 07, 02:00 PM

We still are allowed to cloud climb in the UK because
our representatives negotiated very hard to keep that
right.

One of the standard ways of making cross-country progress
back in the Olympia 2 and Skylark 3 days was to cloud
climb to the top of a cumulus cloud, pop out of the
side, head for another cumulus cloud and then repeat
the process. We had and still have rules about cloud
climbing, which includes sending a radio message on
a set frequency to alert other gliders that we are
doing this, which at least assures separation from
other gliders.

However we have to observe strict VMC rules in most
sorts of controlled airspace, and the country is unfortunately
increasingly being covered in Class D, which every
little tinpot regional airfield seems to be able to
get.

Fortunately there is still some remaining Class G (open
airspace) where we can still legally cloud climb. As
our damp little island has lots of cloud, often with
a very low base, this is a useful right for us to have.

Derek Copeland

At 23:30 06 February 2007, Kirk.Stant wrote:

>Steve, cloud flying in a glider is just as illegal
>as cloud flying in
>any aircraft. If you have the equipment, training,
>rating, and
>clearance (where needed, which nowadays is just about
>anywhere you
>would want to do it) it is perfectly legal and safe.
>
>It's just not common in the US mainly because it's
>not allowed during
>contests.
>
>And please don't confuse a glider using a Cu to climb
>with a
>powerplane on an IFR flight - totally different objectives!
>
>I would love to be able to climb up into a Cu and pop
>out the side -
>legally. But I'm not in the situation to get an intrument
>rating or
>the instruments in my glider - that I would have to
>pull out for every
>contest I wanted to go to.
>
>With the advances in electronics, the possibility that
>my PDA could
>become a nice EADI might be enough to change my mind.
>
>It's funny, how the Brits, with horrible airspace restrictions,
>seem
>to manage to let gliders enjoy cloud flying, and we
>in the US don't,
>for the most part.
>
>Probably due to early and excessive exposure to 2-33s....
>
>Kirk
>66
>
>

Rory O'Conor

February 7th 07, 02:14 PM

And great fun it is too.
=20
Good reason not to go down same line with UK contests.
=20
Rory=20
=20
Subject: Re: Cloud Flying - Experimental
Author: Derek Copeland > <mailto:Derek
Copeland >>=20
Date/Time: 14:00 07 February 2007

________________________________

We still are allowed to cloud climb in the UK because
our representatives negotiated very hard to keep that
right.=20

... Derek Copeland

At 23:30 06 February 2007, Kirk.Stant wrote:

>
>It's just not common in the US mainly because it's
>not allowed during
>contests.
>

Soarin Again

February 7th 07, 04:11 PM

>> something that the FAA specifically states as illegal?
>
>Got a specific FAR to back up that statement?
>Bill Daniels

Bill

Could you enlighten us as to what equipment we would
need to have installed in our gliders in order to be
able
to legally fly IFR in the U.S.?

Bill Daniels

February 7th 07, 05:07 PM

OK, I'll try but it's been a few years since I was IFR current so I may miss
some newer requrements.

I think the best way to answer this is to say that, in general, the FAR's
require you to have the equipment needed for the flight you plan to
undertake. For example, if an airplane pilot wants to fly to an airport
that has only a NDB (Non Directional Beacon) approach, then the airplane has
to have and ADF. If it has only a GPS approach, you need GPS. Equipment
onboard is coded as "/" codes such as /R which means the aircraft is capable
of area navigation. "/A" means you have a Mode C transponder.

Obviously, gliders would never be flying approaches in VMC but might want to
cloud fly or exploit Class A airspace. Class A airspace has it's own
requirements,for example DME (Distance Measuring Equipment) which I think
can be satisfied with GPS. Of course, you also need an attitude indicator,
a quality 760 channel communication transceiver and a transponder. I think
GPS ground track will suffice for heading. (A glider flies so slow that
tere is usually a big difference between heading and track - it's track
you're interested in anyway.)

The way it works is for the pilot to request a clearance that defines a
flight or a portion of a flight and then ATC will respond with an offered
clearance that may, or may not be exactly what the pilot requested. The PIC
then has the option of accepting, rejecting or asking for a modification of
that clearance . This is called "negotiating" a clearance. As above, you
have to have the equipment (and skills) required to fly the clearance you
accept.

A glider, which can not hold an assigned altitude, would be requesting
"block" or "cruise" clearances that define a 3-dimensional block of airspace
in which the glider would be cleared to fly. No other aircraft would be
cleared into that airspace - you would "own" it. As the glider moves cross
country, the block would move with it subject to ongoing negotiations with
ATC. My discussions with ATC representatives have centered around two types
of clearances. For thermalling in cloud, a "climb while holding present
positon" with defined altitudes would be requested. For XC glides, a cruise
clearance to a specified waypoint along a defined route with defined
altitudes would be requested.

This is way too brief and has skipped over some very important points that
would be in an instrument training program. You can see that operating a
glider under IFR rules adds a lot to the pilot workload and may become
overwhelming. One of my personal equipment requirements when flying
airplanes IFR was a working autopilot. Of course, any time you find
yourself in class E airspace and clear of clouds, you can cancel your IFR
clearance and proceed VFR as usual.

Bill Daniels

"Soarin Again" > wrote in message
...
>>> something that the FAA specifically states as illegal?
>>
>>Got a specific FAR to back up that statement?
>>Bill Daniels
>
> Bill
>
> Could you enlighten us as to what equipment we would
> need to have installed in our gliders in order to be
> able
> to legally fly IFR in the U.S.?
>
>
>

toad

February 7th 07, 06:01 PM

On Feb 7, 11:11 am, Soarin Again
> wrote:
> >> something that the FAA specifically states as illegal?
>
> >Got a specific FAR to back up that statement?
> >Bill Daniels
>
> Bill
>
> Could you enlighten us as to what equipment we would
> need to have installed in our gliders in order to be
> able
> to legally fly IFR in the U.S.?

That would be listed in FAR 91.205(d)

A link here to the full reg, http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-
idx?
c=ecfr&sid=4ff466b3af1b868157e0b18f51d27e42&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10.3.7.3&idno=14

Basically, all of the instruments for VFR flight (airspeed, altimeter,
compass), plus:

(2) Two-way radio communications system and navigational equipment
appropriate to the ground facilities to be used.

(3) Gyroscopic rate-of-turn indicator, except on the following
aircraft:

(4) Slip-skid indicator.

(5) Sensitive altimeter adjustable for barometric pressure.

(6) A clock displaying hours, minutes, and seconds with a sweep-second
pointer or digital presentation.

(7) Generator or alternator of adequate capacity.

(8) Gyroscopic pitch and bank indicator (artificial horizon).

(9) Gyroscopic direction indicator (directional gyro or equivalent).

toad

February 7th 07, 06:06 PM

Of course, now I see that only applies to "powered" aircraft.

Toad

jb92563

February 7th 07, 09:32 PM

On Feb 6, 4:54 pm, Jack > wrote:
> Steve Hill wrote:
>
> [....]
>
> > I'm sure Bill's right. If you have all the approved instruments, and
> > certificates and the gumption to pull it off...I'm sure you can. Heck they
> > do in England.
>
> [....]
>
> Nothing wrong with your pointing out the bad parts, Steve. Ain't nothin'
> bogus about safety. It should be understood that there are good parts,
> too, when it's legal to soar in cloud.
>
> There is an expressed concern throughout the community about mid-airs,
> but it doesn't sound like there is any great rush to install
> transponders. The internal dissembling required for an owner to avoid
> installing a transponder in his ship season after season is at least as
> disturbing as any newby's assumption that he can get away with flying in
> cloud.
>
> The use of TPAS and the like is a partial step in the direction of
> enhanced traffic avoidance and so cheap that these units ought to be
> flying off the shelves. <http://www.zaonflight.com/>
>
> Cumulus <http://www.soarmn.com/cumulus/zaon.htm> and
> Wings and Wheels <http://www.wingsandwheels.com/page4.htm>
> offer reasonable deals on this type of equipment, and so much else.
>
> Jack

jb92563

February 7th 07, 10:04 PM

Experimental COA certificate with the Operating limits letter is what
you are allowed to do with your experimental glider.

Your flight test program that you submitted, documented and performed
successfully forms the flight capabilities of your
COA.

In other words...if your flight test program to get the COA done did
not include spins etc...and hence not in your operating limits letter
then you are not legal to perform those manuevers.

Flying straight and level in a cloud without an artificial horizon
will only last for about 30 seconds at most since the turbulence, G'
loads etc will soon cause you
to make incorrect control inputs and ussually results in overspeeding
and overstressing the structure before you exit the cloud.

If you have the sense to do it quickly and deliberately you can slowly
put the stick back and then leave it in the lower right corner with
full right rudder and get yourself into a stable spin which by its
very nature will not descend to quickly nor overstress the aircraft,
although you might get queezy after 10+ turns .......once clear of
cloud you can do a normal spin recovery without having overstressed
anything and live to learn never to do that sort of thing again
without the proper instruments.

You will also find out if your C of G was in the proper range if you
are unable to recover from the spin.
All airworthy soundly designed gliders should be capable of a
predictable, repeatable spin recovery when in the proper C of G
range.

If not then dont fly it, because its not airworthy and will kill you
the first time you mess up!!!

Ray

Derek Copeland

February 8th 07, 01:54 AM

The biggest danger in cloud flying is not spinning
or mid-air collisions, it's getting into a spiral dive.
Without reference to blind flying instruments, it is
very easy to get into an ever steepening turn which
will eventually cause the glider to overspeed and to
be over stressed by excessive g. As long as the turn
is reasonably accurate, the apparent direction of gravity
will always be straight down the vertical axis of the
glider, so your senses will tell you that you are flying
straight when you are turning quite steeply. If you
do actually straighten up from a turn, you will then
get a strong sensation that you are now turning in
the opposite direction.

Some years ago a member of the Lasham based Imperial
College Gliding Club got a Skylark into a spiral dive
while cloud climbing. He ended up pulling so much g
that he blacked out and then collapsed through the
seat pan, which is stressed to 9g for a 110 kg person,
and then out through the bottom of the glider. He came
round to find himself falling through the cloud without
a glider, pulled the ripcord on his parachute and survived
relatively unharmed. When the wreckage of the glider
was found, the canopy was still fastened and the seat
belts were still done up, so he definitely hadn't bailed
out!

In the UK the only operational requirements for cloud
flying are that all occupants of the glider must wear
a serviceable parachute and be trained in its use (which
saved the life of the above pilot). However, in my
opinion, you would be mad to enter cloud without at
least a turn and slip indicator, plus serviceable basic
instruments, and some training in blind flying techniques.

If you get into a spin, the best thing to do is to
hold the glider in the spin by applying full up elevator
and into spin rudder until you drop out of the bottom
of the cloud and then to recover. It is possible to
recover from spins by reference to the instruments
alone, and I have done this under the hood with a safety
pilot, but it is not easy and the worst bit is getting
the glider back under control once the spin has stopped.

Derek Copeland

At 22:06 07 February 2007, Jb92563 wrote:
>Experimental COA certificate with the Operating limits
>letter is what
>you are allowed to do with your experimental glider.
>
>Your flight test program that you submitted, documented
>and performed
>successfully forms the flight capabilities of your
>COA.
>
>In other words...if your flight test program to get
>the COA done did
>not include spins etc...and hence not in your operating
>limits letter
>then you are not legal to perform those manuevers.
>
>Flying straight and level in a cloud without an artificial
>horizon
>will only last for about 30 seconds at most since the
>turbulence, G'
>loads etc will soon cause you
>to make incorrect control inputs and ussually results
>in overspeeding
>and overstressing the structure before you exit the
>cloud.
>
>If you have the sense to do it quickly and deliberately
>you can slowly
>put the stick back and then leave it in the lower right
>corner with
>full right rudder and get yourself into a stable spin
>which by its
>very nature will not descend to quickly nor overstress
>the aircraft,
>although you might get queezy after 10+ turns .......once
>clear of
>cloud you can do a normal spin recovery without having
>overstressed
>anything and live to learn never to do that sort of
>thing again
>without the proper instruments.
>
>You will also find out if your C of G was in the proper
>range if you
>are unable to recover from the spin.
>All airworthy soundly designed gliders should be capable
>of a
>predictable, repeatable spin recovery when in the
>proper C of G
>range.
>
>If not then dont fly it, because its not airworthy
>and will kill you
>the first time you mess up!!!
>
>Ray
>
>

kirk.stant

February 8th 07, 05:32 AM

>
> Flying straight and level in a cloud without an artificial horizon
> will only last for about 30 seconds at most since the turbulence, G'
> loads etc will soon cause you
> to make incorrect control inputs and ussually results in overspeeding
> and overstressing the structure before you exit the cloud.

Funny, people seem to survive in clouds just fine using only needle,
speedle, and airball. Do some research, please. I will agree that an
attitude indicator make life a lot easier and safer. But then so does
a great big WFOV HUD and an autopilot...you use what you got.

If you have the sense to do it quickly and deliberately you can
slowly
> put the stick back and then leave it in the lower right corner with
> full right rudder and get yourself into a stable spin which by its
> very nature will not descend to quickly nor overstress the aircraft,
> although you might get queezy after 10+ turns .......once clear of
> cloud you can do a normal spin recovery without having overstressed
> anything and live to learn never to do that sort of thing again
> without the proper instruments.

Only in some gliders - older ones mainly. Try that in some of the
modern racing ships (elevator limited - such as my LS6) and you will
definitely come out at VNE+ in a graveyard spiral! But if you are in
your 1-26 - go ahead and spin down. (But look up the geezer in Florida
who pulled a wing off his 1-26 that way. Survived, though).

By the way, we are talking about legal cloud flying with the proper
ratings, and equipment.

>
> You will also find out if your C of G was in the proper range if you
> are unable to recover from the spin.
> All airworthy soundly designed gliders should be capable of a
> predictable, repeatable spin recovery when in the proper C of G
> range.

Most modern gliders can't be put in a stable spin - they are elevator
limited. At best, you get a quarter turn before it turns into a
spiral - bad news IMC!

> If not then dont fly it, because its not airworthy and will kill you
> the first time you mess up!!!

Applies to all aircraft. Any bozo in a C-152 can kill himself in a
cloud. Why do you assume gliders are any different?

Kirk
66

Bruce Greef

February 8th 07, 05:50 AM

Dan G wrote:
> In Britain - where cloud flying is common - you radio your position
> and intentions on a set frequency before entering a cloud. (You're
> also required to be wearing a parachute.)
>
> As an aside older British gliders were required to have speed-limiting
> airbrakes, so if it all went pear-shaped you could open the airbrakes
> and eventually fall out the bottom of the cloud at a reasonable
> airspeed. My understanding is that more modern gliders have airbrakes
> that only limit the speed in a 45deg dive.
>
>
> Dan
>
YMMV - Many, including my Cirrus, are <45 degrees.

309

February 8th 07, 06:57 AM

I agree with Bill: the Instrument Ticket IS the hardest: the ATP is
just an instrument ride with tighter tolerances, made possible (and
largely easy) through experience and training -- yes, I have flown
both checkrides (successfully). And those who have not done the
training (for IFR and/or ATP) have a signifcantly different
perspective than those who have. Thanks go out to Bill for pointing
the "failure to communicate." I wonder where modern aviation would be
if Jimmy Doolittle had listened to those that claim "instrument flight
is a crime against nature" and he had never accomplished that
monumental first ever "blind" flight (from takeoff through a SAFE
landing). I suppose it would be a "bigger sky," with room enough for
us to fly in clouds, with "fate being the hunter!"

On Feb 6, 8:03 am, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
> It's hard to have an informed discussion between instrument rated pilots and
> non-instrument rated pilots since the difference in training is huge.
> Getting an instrument rating is probably the hardest rating to get. I've
> been thold that the ATP is easier.

While I got my IFR ticket before I added a very rewarding and
educational Commercial Glider rating, I suspect my next observation
would apply to my glider flying as well as other aspects. I had been
flying (power) aerobatics for years before succumbing to CFI pressure
to add the IFR ticket. Seeing as IFR flying usually involves very
small control pressures and displacements -- as opposed to full
deflection action for aerobatics -- I chose to "pause" my aerobatics
during the final stages of my Instrument training. After a pleasant
Instrument check ride, I couldn't wait to go do aerobatics after the
self imposed sabbatical. In that very next acro flight, I noticed
that my acro maneuvers became significantly more PRECISE as a result
of my IFR training. I had never anticipated such a fringe benefit!!!
I fully believe this would be true for a PPG getting a PPA followed by
an IFR ticket -- the glider flying will benefit from the IFR skills
gained.

> Actually, I know pilots who feel very uncomfortable flying visually.
> (Instrument pilot sits in glider and asks, "Where the hell is the attitude
> indicator?"

These type of people (I will not refer to them as pilots) scare me
more than Inspector Sphincter from the FAA: flying head down on a
CAVU day begging to be party to a midair. Those who are uncomfortable
flying without a full IFR panel will be sorry the day the first of the
six instrumtents fails, or worse, provides misleading information!
I've had both happen to me. Part of the Instrument training is to
recognize failures, cross reference other instruments and adapt to fly
partial panel. Oh, I might add a slight confession: I have been
there and took on some self-imposed goals to "cure the
disease," (e.g., get a glider rating!!!). Now I like to use that
neglected instrument (the "window"), even when it's pure white...

I've also had a controller vector me straight at a mountain, below the
MEA/MOCA (for those without IFR tickets, that means the controller
wanted to point me direclty at cumulo granitus). I think Steve Hill
grossly misrepresented the duties of a competent IFR pilot on an IFR
flight...he needs to remember the ONLY similarity between pilots and
controllers: if the pilot screws up, the pilot dies -- if the
controller screws up, the pilot dies. In defference to Steve's
opinion of this "odd" topic, I think it's great that it gets discussed
and reasonable, safe procedures get established to open the skies for
safe flying. Buckle up in your Aerostar, look out that thing called a
window when it's VMC and share the sky...even the cloudy parts. Oh,
BTW, yes, I have flown Aerostars, too. Move over Big Boy, there's a
1-26 coming through...

> The point is that flight under IMC can be done safely by a well trained
> pilot. It's not the equipment, it's the pilot that makes the difference.
> Almost all accidents under IMC are pilots flying perfectly good aircraft
> into the ground. They even have a name for it - CFIT (Controled Flight Into
> Terrain) Aircraft and the installed instruments have little to do with it
> as long as the pilot knows how to use what he has - and knows his own
> limitations.
>

I have a slight disagreement: it is the COMBINATION of pilot AND
equipment AND TRAINING! Part of knowing how to use it is "computing"
the fact that today, I or the airplane or the weather are not
compatible! Some days, a slight forcast of icing switches me
immediately to "I'll drive" mode! And my previous note about dealing
with failures (spoilers, hooks, engines, GPS's, etc., etc., etc.) is
the lions' share of ALL aviation training, isn't it?

> > I'm looking forward to Shawn's presentation at the convention.

I'm quite sorry other committments will prevent me from seeing it, and
I hope it becomes available though other channels. While I haven't
got the equipment, or the (glider) IFR experience, but perhaps one day
I will (safely) enjoy such extended flights, provided that the triad
is ready: me, aircraft and weather!

-Pete
#309

Stefan

February 10th 07, 12:25 AM

Bill Daniels schrieb:

> Getting an instrument rating is probably the hardest rating to get.

It's hard because of the navigation and approach procedures. None of
them is needed for simple cloud flying. Just flying by reference to
gyros is pretty simple.

Stefan

February 10th 07, 12:27 AM

Bruce Greef schrieb:

>> As an aside older British gliders were required to have speed-limiting
>> airbrakes, so if it all went pear-shaped you could open the airbrakes
>> and eventually fall out the bottom of the cloud at a reasonable
>> airspeed. My understanding is that more modern gliders have airbrakes
>> that only limit the speed in a 45deg dive.

> YMMV - Many, including my Cirrus, are <45 degrees.

JAR-22 requires at least 45 degrees for a glider to be certified for
cloud flying. (This is one of the reasons why the Duo is not.)

Bill Daniels

February 10th 07, 02:45 AM

"Stefan" > wrote in message
. ..
> Bill Daniels schrieb:
>
>> Getting an instrument rating is probably the hardest rating to get.
>
> It's hard because of the navigation and approach procedures. None of them
> is needed for simple cloud flying. Just flying by reference to gyros is
> pretty simple.

True, but in the USA there is no glider instrument rating. You must first
get an airplane instrument rating and all that implies.

Bill Daniels

[email protected]

February 11th 07, 06:45 AM

girls,
Stop winning,
Get instuctor to teach you cloud flying !
Yo, bunch of pussies !
RW

Steve

February 11th 07, 09:55 PM

Just got back from the soaring convention in Memphis. There were 2 talks
by pilots that have been flying on IFR clearances.

Shawn Knickerbocker talked about how he set up his Nimbus for cloud
flying, and how he goes about getting and flying under a clearance. He
pointed out that most recent gliders come into this country under an
experimental certificate. If you look at the flight manual, you'll
likely find a section specifying the equipment needed for cloud flying.
Typically the only additional equipment needed is a turn-and-bank. In
the U.S.A. you'll also need a transponder. He also stated it makes a lot
of sense to also have an artificial horizon, and a redundant battery
system. Before he started cloud flying, he spent some time with local
controllers to understand their environment and how to work a clearance.
He also pointed out that you want to be careful which clouds you climb
into - some can tear your wings off. On the other hand, a good cloud is
a smooth climb.

The second talk was by Gordon Boettger about his 2061 KM flight in class
A airspace. He restricts his flying to VFR conditions, but has a T&B and
transponder to be legal to fly in IFR airspace. He put a lot of effort
into getting agreements with the centers whose airspace he flies
through. He even mentioned a SouthWest airline conversation with center.
They wanted to climb, but couldn't because of the glider above them.

It is possible, and legal, to set up a glider for IFR flight. You can
get a clearance. This isn't for the casual pilot.

Steve

Derek Copeland wrote:
> The biggest danger in cloud flying is not spinning
> or mid-air collisions, it's getting into a spiral dive.
> Without reference to blind flying instruments, it is
> very easy to get into an ever steepening turn which
> will eventually cause the glider to overspeed and to
> be over stressed by excessive g. As long as the turn
> is reasonably accurate, the apparent direction of gravity
> will always be straight down the vertical axis of the
> glider, so your senses will tell you that you are flying
> straight when you are turning quite steeply. If you
> do actually straighten up from a turn, you will then
> get a strong sensation that you are now turning in
> the opposite direction.
>
> Some years ago a member of the Lasham based Imperial
> College Gliding Club got a Skylark into a spiral dive
> while cloud climbing. He ended up pulling so much g
> that he blacked out and then collapsed through the
> seat pan, which is stressed to 9g for a 110 kg person,
> and then out through the bottom of the glider. He came
> round to find himself falling through the cloud without
> a glider, pulled the ripcord on his parachute and survived
> relatively unharmed. When the wreckage of the glider
> was found, the canopy was still fastened and the seat
> belts were still done up, so he definitely hadn't bailed
> out!
>
> In the UK the only operational requirements for cloud
> flying are that all occupants of the glider must wear
> a serviceable parachute and be trained in its use (which
> saved the life of the above pilot). However, in my
> opinion, you would be mad to enter cloud without at
> least a turn and slip indicator, plus serviceable basic
> instruments, and some training in blind flying techniques.
>
> If you get into a spin, the best thing to do is to
> hold the glider in the spin by applying full up elevator
> and into spin rudder until you drop out of the bottom
> of the cloud and then to recover. It is possible to
> recover from spins by reference to the instruments
> alone, and I have done this under the hood with a safety
> pilot, but it is not easy and the worst bit is getting
> the glider back under control once the spin has stopped.
>
> Derek Copeland
>
>
> At 22:06 07 February 2007, Jb92563 wrote:
>> Experimental COA certificate with the Operating limits
>> letter is what
>> you are allowed to do with your experimental glider.
>>
>> Your flight test program that you submitted, documented
>> and performed
>> successfully forms the flight capabilities of your
>> COA.
>>
>> In other words...if your flight test program to get
>> the COA done did
>> not include spins etc...and hence not in your operating
>> limits letter
>> then you are not legal to perform those manuevers.
>>
>> Flying straight and level in a cloud without an artificial
>> horizon
>> will only last for about 30 seconds at most since the
>> turbulence, G'
>> loads etc will soon cause you
>> to make incorrect control inputs and ussually results
>> in overspeeding
>> and overstressing the structure before you exit the
>> cloud.
>>
>> If you have the sense to do it quickly and deliberately
>> you can slowly
>> put the stick back and then leave it in the lower right
>> corner with
>> full right rudder and get yourself into a stable spin
>> which by its
>> very nature will not descend to quickly nor overstress
>> the aircraft,
>> although you might get queezy after 10+ turns .......once
>> clear of
>> cloud you can do a normal spin recovery without having
>> overstressed
>> anything and live to learn never to do that sort of
>> thing again
>> without the proper instruments.
>>
>> You will also find out if your C of G was in the proper
>> range if you
>> are unable to recover from the spin.
>> All airworthy soundly designed gliders should be capable
>> of a
>> predictable, repeatable spin recovery when in the
>> proper C of G
>> range.
>>
>> If not then dont fly it, because its not airworthy
>> and will kill you
>> the first time you mess up!!!
>>
>> Ray
>>
>>
>
>
>

[email protected]

February 12th 07, 02:11 AM

On Feb 11, 4:55 pm, Steve > wrote:
> Just got back from the soaring convention in Memphis. There were 2 talks
> by pilots that have been flying on IFR clearances.
>
> Shawn Knickerbocker talked about how he set up his Nimbus for cloud
> flying, and how he goes about getting and flying under a clearance. He
> pointed out that most recent gliders come into this country under an
> experimental certificate. If you look at the flight manual, you'll
> likely find a section specifying the equipment needed for cloud flying.
> Typically the only additional equipment needed is a turn-and-bank. In
> the U.S.A. you'll also need a transponder. He also stated it makes a lot
> of sense to also have an artificial horizon, and a redundant battery
> system. Before he started cloud flying, he spent some time with local
> controllers to understand their environment and how to work a clearance.
> He also pointed out that you want to be careful which clouds you climb
> into - some can tear your wings off. On the other hand, a good cloud is
> a smooth climb.
>
> The second talk was by Gordon Boettger about his 2061 KM flight in class
> A airspace. He restricts his flying to VFR conditions, but has a T&B and
> transponder to be legal to fly in IFR airspace. He put a lot of effort
> into getting agreements with the centers whose airspace he flies
> through. He even mentioned a SouthWest airline conversation with center.
> They wanted to climb, but couldn't because of the glider above them.
>
> It is possible, and legal, to set up a glider for IFR flight. You can
> get a clearance. This isn't for the casual pilot.
>
> Steve
>
> Derek Copeland wrote:
> > The biggest danger in cloud flying is not spinning
> > or mid-air collisions, it's getting into a spiral dive.
> > Without reference to blind flying instruments, it is
> > very easy to get into an ever steepening turn which
> > will eventually cause the glider to overspeed and to
> > be over stressed by excessive g. As long as the turn
> > is reasonably accurate, the apparent direction of gravity
> > will always be straight down the vertical axis of the
> > glider, so your senses will tell you that you are flying
> > straight when you are turning quite steeply. If you
> > do actually straighten up from a turn, you will then
> > get a strong sensation that you are now turning in
> > the opposite direction.
>
> > Some years ago a member of the Lasham based Imperial
> > College Gliding Club got a Skylark into a spiral dive
> > while cloud climbing. He ended up pulling so much g
> > that he blacked out and then collapsed through the
> > seat pan, which is stressed to 9g for a 110 kg person,
> > and then out through the bottom of the glider. He came
> > round to find himself falling through the cloud without
> > a glider, pulled the ripcord on his parachute and survived
> > relatively unharmed. When the wreckage of the glider
> > was found, the canopy was still fastened and the seat
> > belts were still done up, so he definitely hadn't bailed
> > out!
>
> > In the UK the only operational requirements for cloud
> > flying are that all occupants of the glider must wear
> > a serviceable parachute and be trained in its use (which
> > saved the life of the above pilot). However, in my
> > opinion, you would be mad to enter cloud without at
> > least a turn and slip indicator, plus serviceable basic
> > instruments, and some training in blind flying techniques.
>
> > If you get into a spin, the best thing to do is to
> > hold the glider in the spin by applying full up elevator
> > and into spin rudder until you drop out of the bottom
> > of the cloud and then to recover. It is possible to
> > recover from spins by reference to the instruments
> > alone, and I have done this under the hood with a safety
> > pilot, but it is not easy and the worst bit is getting
> > the glider back under control once the spin has stopped.
>
> > Derek Copeland
>
> > At 22:06 07 February 2007, Jb92563 wrote:
> >> Experimental COA certificate with the Operating limits
> >> letter is what
> >> you are allowed to do with your experimental glider.
>
> >> Your flight test program that you submitted, documented
> >> and performed
> >> successfully forms the flight capabilities of your
> >> COA.
>
> >> In other words...if your flight test program to get
> >> the COA done did
> >> not include spins etc...and hence not in your operating
> >> limits letter
> >> then you are not legal to perform those manuevers.
>
> >> Flying straight and level in a cloud without an artificial
> >> horizon
> >> will only last for about 30 seconds at most since the
> >> turbulence, G'
> >> loads etc will soon cause you
> >> to make incorrect control inputs and ussually results
> >> in overspeeding
> >> and overstressing the structure before you exit the
> >> cloud.
>
> >> If you have the sense to do it quickly and deliberately
> >> you can slowly
> >> put the stick back and then leave it in the lower right
> >> corner with
> >> full right rudder and get yourself into a stable spin
> >> which by its
> >> very nature will not descend to quickly nor overstress
> >> the aircraft,
> >> although you might get queezy after 10+ turns .......once
> >> clear of
> >> cloud you can do a normal spin recovery without having
> >> overstressed
> >> anything and live to learn never to do that sort of
> >> thing again
> >> without the proper instruments.
>
> >> You will also find out if your C of G was in the proper
> >> range if you
> >> are unable to recover from the spin.
> >> All airworthy soundly designed gliders should be capable
> >> of a
> >> predictable, repeatable spin recovery when in the
> >> proper C of G
> >> range.
>
> >> If not then dont fly it, because its not airworthy
> >> and will kill you
> >> the first time you mess up!!!
>
> >> Ray

Steve, I was there too. Also had several meals with Shawn.
Transponder actually isnt required, even though many think it is, for
IFR flying. He did say that it is a good idea and makes getting
clearances about 90% easier. I am in a different boat than he is
though as I have an amatuer built glider without a operating handbook
so I must prove that my glider meets a suitable standard.

Peter Harvey

February 12th 07, 01:27 PM

Hi folks
Thought I'd add my 2cts and hope it's useful.
I've cloud flown a reasonable amount, mostly competitions,
all in the UK. Gliders cloud-flown include Vega, Bocian,
Duo, LS8, ASW27, ASW22, ASH25 and Nimbus4.

Regardless of the legal requirements, I’ve adopted
the following practical approach and it’s stood me
in good stead (I’m not an instructor, so you’ll have
to make your own minds up).

1) Minimum equipment (for me) is artificial horizon
and GPS. Everything else is merely desireable and I’ll
explain why.
Clouds are wet and cold. Eventually ice forms and your
ASI WILL be rendered useless (I have 2 pitots on the
Nimbus4, but both block within a few minutes of each
other). With no ASI (and no AH) then your T&S should
immediately be used to level up and LEAVE! IMHO it’s
a backup instrument in a glider.

2)Know where you are and heading. I've found that the
GPS provides very accurate direction whilst circling
(thermalling), albeit some 35 - 40 degrees behind for
direction. By commencing a levelling turn 40degrees
before desired heading, the final heading is achieved.
One can thereby change from thermalling to straight
flight pretty accurately. The compass is very difficult
to fly, with its progressing and recessing, but better
pilots than I use them regularly.

It often (usually) gets bumpy during the climb and
sometimes darn right turbulent. The cloud climb characteristics
seem to work through layers: The lift accelerates just
below cloudbase (latent heat of condensation) and the
'feel' often changes to slightly more active air (it
is)! This continues into the cloud (did I mention that
all radio calls, trimming, etc are done in the clear
below, leaving plenty of time to CONCENTRATE?).
The turn rate and trimming are already done and the
glider should pretty well fly itself hands off with
SMALL movements to counter any developing TRENDS.

Established in the circling climb, I scan the ASI,
cotton yaw string, horizon, GPS and VSI (keep reading
before you get overly excited - this is the PRACTICAL
approach). I look for the trend as much as the specific
value. If the AH shows the turn increasing, I take
off a little bank and vice versa. Sounds easy, but
of course as bank increases, the speed increases (back
to school) and when I unbank I need to push a little
to maintain speed. You'd be amazed how this basic becomes
difficult with a visual term of reference. Thermalling
the Nimbus in clear air, I aim for 57 knots for a reasonable
4knot climb. IN the cloud in the same thermal I expect
the climb rate to increase to closer to 6knots, but
I’ll let the speed vary from 50 to 65knots without
pulling or pushing too hard. Any more than that and
the flaps will have to go away. Small movements, anticipation,
look at the trend. OK, it’s going well, I’m 2000’ into
the cloud and lift improves to 8knots with a little
re-centering. Now the canopy is getting very wet and
that yaw string is glued and useless. However, it was
helpful to establish what ‘normal’ felt like and I
can now ignore it and scan the remaining instruments
(ASI, horizon, GPS and VSI) . It’s getting darker and
a little rougher. As the lift increased I had to allow
the glider to take a slightly higher attitude on the
AH to avoid excessive speed. Can someone explain that?
That means as the glider bounces out of the strongest
bit of lift I need to push quite positively and quickly
to avoid flying too slow. I use my bum to tell me when
the lift reduces or increases! VSI is too slow to respond.
The wings are very difficult to see now (I did an occasional
glance earlier when it was smooth) as ice starts to
cover the canopy inside and out. The ASI has packed
in, but that’s OK because I know what ‘normal’ looks
like on the AH. Instrument scan now AH, GPS, VSI. Lift
is now 9knots and still increasing. It’s getting colder,
I'm cold and forcing myself to relax on the stick,
but there’s a lighter patch on each revolution of the
turn that tells me I’m near the edge of the cloud.
Often the case higher up I’ve found, even if entering
the middle. The noise has increased. I particularly
notice it as I swallow and clear my ears in the 10knot
lift. It’s the ice forming on the wings. The controls
are sluggish and with my small anticipatory movements
the ice is slowly freezing the available movement in
the controls. I deliberately ‘stir’ the stick in a
quick wide circle to break free the controls. Time
to seriously consider leaving. I’ve been scanning the
GPS, so have a mental picture of which way ‘out’ or
the desired heading is. 40 degrees before heading I
bank over to level up, pushing quite positively. The
GPS is within 10 degrees (that will do) the AH is pretty
much there on the attitude and pretty level (my scan
is now AH and GPS only). It seems a bit slapdash maybe,
but keeping it within limits is the key. With 10knots
lift and now some 10,000’ extra height, flying precisely
is less an issue, flying safely is everything. More
turbulence as I fly along, but I resist the temptation
to push, pull or bank as my senses cry out. I only
follow the instruments and nothing else. Suddenly it’s
light, brilliant sun and I’m free. Check the horizon
(real) against the AH, but prepare to re-enter – keep
scanning in case it’s just a small gap. I keep a little
extra speed to compensate for the icy wings – just
a guess since the ASI is still frozen. I re-trim for
level flight. Finally clear, the view is stunning.
Another 5,000’ of cloud above, the ground a long way
down and a long glide beckoning into the warm air,
slower because of the ice, with occasional ‘stirs’
to keep the controls free.

I find that it’s a very useful skill that needs practice
and I do get rusty.
Most important of all, I practiced a ‘get out’. In
free air I experimented with various attitudes and
flap settings. For my Nimbus4 with the airbrakes extended,
flaps in neutral and the trimmer next to that funny
mark, controls held firm, the glider will eventually
recover from pretty much any attitude. I practiced
that in clear air, so I know it will work if I loose
it in the cloud. I just have to get the brakes out
before their limiting speed.

If the AH or electric fail (it’s happened to me) then
the AH flag will pop out and you’ve got a minute or
two to straighten and escape. This is when the T&S
comes into its own as a backup – to escape. The batteries
will get cold and don’t perform as well. Can;t have
too much power. Personally I don’t trust the new electronic
‘horizons’. I prefer a gyro that continues spinning
after the power fails.

With practice, one can centre and re-centre the climb
as the core moves. It needs a mental picture of the
turn and that’s where the GPS direction helps. It can
be a very rewarding experience, but best learnt in
a 2-seater with a grown-up! It’s a little scary at
first, but incredibly rewarding. Other factors include
temperature (yes I do use the guage), who's below,
who's nearby and whether the increased drag with wet
/ icy wings makes the whole exercise beneficial.

I wouldn’t try it in a thunderstorm!
Hope this helps – I await the flamers …
Pete Harvey