Troubling story and some questions

[[email protected]]

Hi Gang
Last week Minden had some excellent wave soaring. Off tow at 7.7k
msl and within minutes up to 18k. I decided to go up north skirting
Reno Intl. I had the transponder on and was monitoring Reno Approach.
My goal was to try and fly as fast as possible maintaining an altitude
very close to 18k by speeding up in lift and slowing down in light
lift or sink. This worked well for the first 35 miles where my IAS
(indicated air speed) ranged between 50 knots and 110 knots flying
never less than 17k. Then I got into some real lift and pointed the
nose down and noticed my Becker transponder registering 18.2k which
is, of course, a no no. I then glanced at the IAS. It read 138 knots
which is 165 knots TAS. (Every 1000 feet of altitude above sea level
results in an error of 1.5% in IAS.) So what to do? If I pulled the
spoilers at that speed, the shock might destroy them or the glider. So
I gently pulled the stick back and translated speed into altitude
going above 19k. At about 70 knots I pulled the spoilers and got
myself down to below 18k. I wonder if ATC caught that? Why was this so
bad? Well the VNE at sea level for the SparrowHawk is 123 knots and it
has been demonstrated that at 171 knots the wings come off. This
really gave me cause for concern. How quickly one can get into trouble
by not paying attention. In the future I will fly slower and use the
spoilers to compensate for excessive lift so as to maintain altitude.
This story raises some questions about VNE at various altitudes
which should be of interest to all of us glider pilots. I Googled
combinations of words such as "flutter altitude", "VNE altitude" and
"aircraft breakup altitude" to try and come up with information on
whether the flutter/breakup characteristics of an aircraft are less at
altitude than sea level at the same TAS. Intuitively it would seem so
but intuition may not work here. I found nothing useful. I know that
the World's ultimate high altitude motor glider the U2, which was
designed in the 50s, had much study done on it with regard to its
operating speed window of about 20mph (stall to breakup)at 80k feet
msl. There should now be declassified documents on those studies which
might answer my questions. I would appreciate any pointers anyone. If
I find anything useful I will summarize it on RAS.
Flying is often unforgiving of errors and I will definitely be more
vigilant after this wake up call.
Dave

[Bullwinkle]

On 12/30/07 11:03 PM, in article
,
" > wrote:

> Hi Gang
> Last week Minden had some excellent wave soaring. Off tow at 7.7k
> msl and within minutes up to 18k. I decided to go up north skirting
> Reno Intl. I had the transponder on and was monitoring Reno Approach.
> My goal was to try and fly as fast as possible maintaining an altitude
> very close to 18k by speeding up in lift and slowing down in light
> lift or sink. This worked well for the first 35 miles where my IAS
> (indicated air speed) ranged between 50 knots and 110 knots flying
> never less than 17k. Then I got into some real lift and pointed the
> nose down and noticed my Becker transponder registering 18.2k which
> is, of course, a no no. I then glanced at the IAS. It read 138 knots
> which is 165 knots TAS. (Every 1000 feet of altitude above sea level
> results in an error of 1.5% in IAS.) So what to do? If I pulled the
> spoilers at that speed, the shock might destroy them or the glider. So
> I gently pulled the stick back and translated speed into altitude
> going above 19k. At about 70 knots I pulled the spoilers and got
> myself down to below 18k. I wonder if ATC caught that? Why was this so
> bad? Well the VNE at sea level for the SparrowHawk is 123 knots and it
> has been demonstrated that at 171 knots the wings come off. This
> really gave me cause for concern. How quickly one can get into trouble
> by not paying attention. In the future I will fly slower and use the
> spoilers to compensate for excessive lift so as to maintain altitude.
> This story raises some questions about VNE at various altitudes
> which should be of interest to all of us glider pilots. I Googled
> combinations of words such as "flutter altitude", "VNE altitude" and
> "aircraft breakup altitude" to try and come up with information on
> whether the flutter/breakup characteristics of an aircraft are less at
> altitude than sea level at the same TAS. Intuitively it would seem so
> but intuition may not work here. I found nothing useful. I know that
> the World's ultimate high altitude motor glider the U2, which was
> designed in the 50s, had much study done on it with regard to its
> operating speed window of about 20mph (stall to breakup)at 80k feet
> msl. There should now be declassified documents on those studies which
> might answer my questions. I would appreciate any pointers anyone. If
> I find anything useful I will summarize it on RAS.
> Flying is often unforgiving of errors and I will definitely be more
> vigilant after this wake up call.
> Dave

Great story with a lot of lessons for all of us. I've got nothing to offer
about the U-2, but don't forget to file your NASA ASRS.

[Chris Rollings]

Flutter speed (the normal cause of the break-up you
are concerned about) varies with altitude but not so
much as does the IAS. As an example, if your flutter
speed is 180 knots at sea level, meaning you can fly
up to 179 knots IAS (and TAS) at sea level, if you
climb to an altitude where 180 knots TAS is 100 knots
IAS, you will probably be able to go up to abouit 140
knots IAS before flutter occurs.

Don't take that as definitive for your glider, it varies
from type to type.

Your 1.5% error per thousand feet only holds good over
a very limited altitude range, space does not start
at 67,000 feet.

At 06:06 31 December 2007, wrote:
>Hi Gang
> Last week Minden had some excellent wave soaring.
>Off tow at 7.7k
>msl and within minutes up to 18k. I decided to go up
>north skirting
>Reno Intl. I had the transponder on and was monitoring
>Reno Approach.
>My goal was to try and fly as fast as possible maintaining
>an altitude
>very close to 18k by speeding up in lift and slowing
>down in light
>lift or sink. This worked well for the first 35 miles
>where my IAS
>(indicated air speed) ranged between 50 knots and
>110 knots flying
>never less than 17k. Then I got into some real lift
>and pointed the
>nose down and noticed my Becker transponder registering
>18.2k which
>is, of course, a no no. I then glanced at the IAS.
>It read 138 knots
>which is 165 knots TAS. (Every 1000 feet of altitude
>above sea level
>results in an error of 1.5% in IAS.) So what to do?
>If I pulled the
>spoilers at that speed, the shock might destroy them
>or the glider. So
>I gently pulled the stick back and translated speed
>into altitude
>going above 19k. At about 70 knots I pulled the spoilers
>and got
>myself down to below 18k. I wonder if ATC caught that?
>Why was this so
>bad? Well the VNE at sea level for the SparrowHawk
>is 123 knots and it
>has been demonstrated that at 171 knots the wings come
>off. This
>really gave me cause for concern. How quickly one can
>get into trouble
>by not paying attention. In the future I will fly slower
>and use the
>spoilers to compensate for excessive lift so as to
>maintain altitude.
> This story raises some questions about VNE at various
>altitudes
>which should be of interest to all of us glider pilots.
>I Googled
>combinations of words such as 'flutter altitude', 'VNE
>altitude' and
>'aircraft breakup altitude' to try and come up with
>information on
>whether the flutter/breakup characteristics of an aircraft
>are less at
>altitude than sea level at the same TAS. Intuitively
>it would seem so
>but intuition may not work here. I found nothing useful.
>I know that
>the World's ultimate high altitude motor glider the
>U2, which was
>designed in the 50s, had much study done on it with
>regard to its
>operating speed window of about 20mph (stall to breakup)at
>80k feet
>msl. There should now be declassified documents on
>those studies which
>might answer my questions. I would appreciate any pointers
>anyone. If
>I find anything useful I will summarize it on RAS.
> Flying is often unforgiving of errors and I will
>definitely be more
>vigilant after this wake up call.
>Dave
>

[01-- Zero One]

Dave,



You had another option open to you other than pulling up to slow down to
extend brakes and therefore bumping higher into "no-no" airspace.



You could have maintained your airspeed but turned left or right to get
into weaker lift or light sink. Once you had lost enough altitude then
eased back over into the stronger lift regions.



Larry

"01" USA

Ventus 2bx







" > wrote in message
:

> Hi Gang
> Last week Minden had some excellent wave soaring. Off tow at 7.7k
> msl and within minutes up to 18k. I decided to go up north skirting
> Reno Intl. I had the transponder on and was monitoring Reno Approach.
> My goal was to try and fly as fast as possible maintaining an altitude
> very close to 18k by speeding up in lift and slowing down in light
> lift or sink. This worked well for the first 35 miles where my IAS
> (indicated air speed) ranged between 50 knots and 110 knots flying
> never less than 17k. Then I got into some real lift and pointed the
> nose down and noticed my Becker transponder registering 18.2k which
> is, of course, a no no. I then glanced at the IAS. It read 138 knots
> which is 165 knots TAS. (Every 1000 feet of altitude above sea level
> results in an error of 1.5% in IAS.) So what to do? If I pulled the
> spoilers at that speed, the shock might destroy them or the glider. So
> I gently pulled the stick back and translated speed into altitude
> going above 19k. At about 70 knots I pulled the spoilers and got
> myself down to below 18k. I wonder if ATC caught that? Why was this so
> bad? Well the VNE at sea level for the SparrowHawk is 123 knots and it
> has been demonstrated that at 171 knots the wings come off. This
> really gave me cause for concern. How quickly one can get into trouble
> by not paying attention. In the future I will fly slower and use the
> spoilers to compensate for excessive lift so as to maintain altitude.
> This story raises some questions about VNE at various altitudes
> which should be of interest to all of us glider pilots. I Googled
> combinations of words such as "flutter altitude", "VNE altitude" and
> "aircraft breakup altitude" to try and come up with information on
> whether the flutter/breakup characteristics of an aircraft are less at
> altitude than sea level at the same TAS. Intuitively it would seem so
> but intuition may not work here. I found nothing useful. I know that
> the World's ultimate high altitude motor glider the U2, which was
> designed in the 50s, had much study done on it with regard to its
> operating speed window of about 20mph (stall to breakup)at 80k feet
> msl. There should now be declassified documents on those studies which
> might answer my questions. I would appreciate any pointers anyone. If
> I find anything useful I will summarize it on RAS.
> Flying is often unforgiving of errors and I will definitely be more
> vigilant after this wake up call.
> Dave

[[email protected]]

On Dec 31, 6:10*am, "Byron Covey" > wrote:
> "Chris Rollings" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Flutter speed (the normal cause of the break-up you
> > are concerned about) varies with altitude but not so
> > much as does the IAS.
>
> Are you certain? *Isn't aero flutter a function of true airspeed?
>

My understanding has always been that the reason Vne drops with
altitude is that flutter is a TAS phenomenon.

9B

[[email protected]]

On Dec 31, 8:26*am, wrote:
> On Dec 31, 6:10*am, "Byron Covey" > wrote:
>
> > "Chris Rollings" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > > Flutter speed (the normal cause of the break-up you
> > > are concerned about) varies with altitude but not so
> > > much as does the IAS.
>
> > Are you certain? *Isn't aero flutter a function of true airspeed?
>
> My understanding has always been that the reason Vne drops with
> altitude is that flutter is a TAS phenomenon.
>
> 9B

True sort of. I think what Chris is referring to is that it
apparently is not a simple direct relationship. Hard core wave pilots
and some aerodynamic experts can tell you why. It's a fairly esoteric
area. Each machine has different flutter characteristics, loading
varies... It really gets weird above 40k but even at 18k you can have
a bad day pushing the limits.

Matt Michael

[Bill Daniels]

Been there done that and glad you got home OK. High performance gliders are
hard to dive out of lift - they just go faster and keep climbing.

I'd suggest to all that, before you get into a situation like this, find out
how your spoilers react at airspeeds near Vne. Work up to it in 5kt
increments starting at 80 knots or so by cracking the spoilers open and
trying to hold them open just a crack.

You won't need much spoiler since the drag produced by them increases with
the cube of airspeed. Even if you need more, most spoiler systems are
fairly forgiving once cracked open so you can smoothly add more drag as
needed.

Bill Daniels



> wrote in message
...
> Hi Gang
> Last week Minden had some excellent wave soaring. Off tow at 7.7k
> msl and within minutes up to 18k. I decided to go up north skirting
> Reno Intl. I had the transponder on and was monitoring Reno Approach.
> My goal was to try and fly as fast as possible maintaining an altitude
> very close to 18k by speeding up in lift and slowing down in light
> lift or sink. This worked well for the first 35 miles where my IAS
> (indicated air speed) ranged between 50 knots and 110 knots flying
> never less than 17k. Then I got into some real lift and pointed the
> nose down and noticed my Becker transponder registering 18.2k which
> is, of course, a no no. I then glanced at the IAS. It read 138 knots
> which is 165 knots TAS. (Every 1000 feet of altitude above sea level
> results in an error of 1.5% in IAS.) So what to do? If I pulled the
> spoilers at that speed, the shock might destroy them or the glider. So
> I gently pulled the stick back and translated speed into altitude
> going above 19k. At about 70 knots I pulled the spoilers and got
> myself down to below 18k. I wonder if ATC caught that? Why was this so
> bad? Well the VNE at sea level for the SparrowHawk is 123 knots and it
> has been demonstrated that at 171 knots the wings come off. This
> really gave me cause for concern. How quickly one can get into trouble
> by not paying attention. In the future I will fly slower and use the
> spoilers to compensate for excessive lift so as to maintain altitude.
> This story raises some questions about VNE at various altitudes
> which should be of interest to all of us glider pilots. I Googled
> combinations of words such as "flutter altitude", "VNE altitude" and
> "aircraft breakup altitude" to try and come up with information on
> whether the flutter/breakup characteristics of an aircraft are less at
> altitude than sea level at the same TAS. Intuitively it would seem so
> but intuition may not work here. I found nothing useful. I know that
> the World's ultimate high altitude motor glider the U2, which was
> designed in the 50s, had much study done on it with regard to its
> operating speed window of about 20mph (stall to breakup)at 80k feet
> msl. There should now be declassified documents on those studies which
> might answer my questions. I would appreciate any pointers anyone. If
> I find anything useful I will summarize it on RAS.
> Flying is often unforgiving of errors and I will definitely be more
> vigilant after this wake up call.
> Dave

[ZL]

wrote:
> On Dec 31, 8:26 am, wrote:
>> On Dec 31, 6:10 am, "Byron Covey" > wrote:
>>
>>> "Chris Rollings" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Flutter speed (the normal cause of the break-up you
>>>> are concerned about) varies with altitude but not so
>>>> much as does the IAS.
>>> Are you certain? Isn't aero flutter a function of true airspeed?
>> My understanding has always been that the reason Vne drops with
>> altitude is that flutter is a TAS phenomenon.
>>
>> 9B
>
> True sort of. I think what Chris is referring to is that it
> apparently is not a simple direct relationship. Hard core wave pilots
> and some aerodynamic experts can tell you why. It's a fairly esoteric
> area. Each machine has different flutter characteristics, loading
> varies... It really gets weird above 40k but even at 18k you can have
> a bad day pushing the limits.
>
> Matt Michael
You might try googling Aeroelasticity. Several 800+ page academic text
books come up, each with extensive discussion of flutter. Not a simple
topic.

-Dave Leonard

[Shawn[_4_]]

wrote:
> Hi Gang
> Last week Minden had some excellent wave soaring. Off tow at 7.7k
> msl and within minutes up to 18k. I decided to go up north skirting
> Reno Intl. I had the transponder on and was monitoring Reno Approach.
> My goal was to try and fly as fast as possible maintaining an altitude
> very close to 18k by speeding up in lift and slowing down in light
> lift or sink. This worked well for the first 35 miles where my IAS
> (indicated air speed) ranged between 50 knots and 110 knots flying
> never less than 17k. Then I got into some real lift and pointed the
> nose down and noticed my Becker transponder registering 18.2k which
> is, of course, a no no. I then glanced at the IAS. It read 138 knots
> which is 165 knots TAS. (Every 1000 feet of altitude above sea level
> results in an error of 1.5% in IAS.) So what to do? If I pulled the
> spoilers at that speed, the shock might destroy them or the glider. So
> I gently pulled the stick back and translated speed into altitude
> going above 19k. At about 70 knots I pulled the spoilers and got
> myself down to below 18k. I wonder if ATC caught that? Why was this so
> bad? Well the VNE at sea level for the SparrowHawk is 123 knots and it
> has been demonstrated that at 171 knots the wings come off. This
> really gave me cause for concern. How quickly one can get into trouble
> by not paying attention. In the future I will fly slower and use the
> spoilers to compensate for excessive lift so as to maintain altitude.
> This story raises some questions about VNE at various altitudes
> which should be of interest to all of us glider pilots. I Googled
> combinations of words such as "flutter altitude", "VNE altitude" and
> "aircraft breakup altitude" to try and come up with information on
> whether the flutter/breakup characteristics of an aircraft are less at
> altitude than sea level at the same TAS. Intuitively it would seem so
> but intuition may not work here. I found nothing useful. I know that
> the World's ultimate high altitude motor glider the U2, which was
> designed in the 50s, had much study done on it with regard to its
> operating speed window of about 20mph (stall to breakup)at 80k feet
> msl. There should now be declassified documents on those studies which
> might answer my questions. I would appreciate any pointers anyone. If
> I find anything useful I will summarize it on RAS.
> Flying is often unforgiving of errors and I will definitely be more
> vigilant after this wake up call.

What does your POH say about opening spoilers at high speed? Below
Maneuvering Speed (80 kts, I checked) it shouldn't be a big deal.
FWIW, I think you did the right thing in losing speed right now, rather
than thinking of the FAA implications. Could the feds ground you from
flying your ultralight anyway (probably)? ;-)


Shawn

[Eric Greenwell]

wrote:
> Then I got into some real lift and pointed the
> nose down and noticed my Becker transponder registering 18.2k which
> is, of course, a no no.

Not really - our 18,000' limit is measured with the altimeter, typically
set by adjusting it to field elevation (msl) while on the ground. Your
transponder was reporting the altitude measured by the encoder, which is
set to 29.92 to measure "pressure altitude". These two measurements can
vary by a thousand feet or more at 18,000', depending on the weather.

As some of the other posters have pointed out, determining flutter
speeds is a tricky business. "Fundamentals of Sailplane Design"
discusses altitude effects on pages 58-60, indicating the "constant TAS"
limit is generally very conservative, but it's best to stick to the
flight manual or contact the manufacturer for guidance.

The flight manual for my ASH 26 E uses a combination of constant IAS and
constant TAS for Vne: it's constant IAS up to 10,000', and essentially
constant TAS above that. That TAS value is equal to Vne (IAS) at 10,000'.

I recommend the "Fundamentals..." book be on every glider pilot's
bookshelf, and that the pilot read it through at least once. It's a
great resource, and a better place to start than wading through a bunch
of hits by Google.

--
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

[Fred Whitney]

Dave,

Thanks for posting your experience. I am glad you
survived.

I fear your situation may have been worse than you
suspect.
Not knowing the actual atmospheric conditions at the
time and place of your event, I used ICAO standard
day conditions, and standard lapse rate, to compute
your TAS. I used my antique E-6B, inputting 18,000
feet, -21C, and 138K IAS. I ignored compressibility,
figuring it was insignificant at your Mach and altitude.
The result was 183K TAS, significantly higher than
your estimate.

Two thoughts come to mind: 1) Beware of using 'rules
of thumb', and 2) perhaps a professional inspection
of your aircraft is warranted.

Regards,

Fred W.




At 06:06 31 December 2007, wrote:
>Hi Gang
> Last week Minden had some excellent wave soaring.
>Off tow at 7.7k
>msl and within minutes up to 18k. I decided to go up
>north skirting
>Reno Intl. I had the transponder on and was monitoring
>Reno Approach.
>My goal was to try and fly as fast as possible maintaining
>an altitude
>very close to 18k by speeding up in lift and slowing
>down in light
>lift or sink. This worked well for the first 35 miles
>where my IAS
>(indicated air speed) ranged between 50 knots and
>110 knots flying
>never less than 17k. Then I got into some real lift
>and pointed the
>nose down and noticed my Becker transponder registering
>18.2k which
>is, of course, a no no. I then glanced at the IAS.
>It read 138 knots
>which is 165 knots TAS. (Every 1000 feet of altitude
>above sea level
>results in an error of 1.5% in IAS.) So what to do?
>If I pulled the
>spoilers at that speed, the shock might destroy them
>or the glider. So
>I gently pulled the stick back and translated speed
>into altitude
>going above 19k. At about 70 knots I pulled the spoilers
>and got
>myself down to below 18k. I wonder if ATC caught that?
>Why was this so
>bad? Well the VNE at sea level for the SparrowHawk
>is 123 knots and it
>has been demonstrated that at 171 knots the wings come
>off. This
>really gave me cause for concern. How quickly one can
>get into trouble
>by not paying attention. In the future I will fly slower
>and use the
>spoilers to compensate for excessive lift so as to
>maintain altitude.
> This story raises some questions about VNE at various
>altitudes
>which should be of interest to all of us glider pilots.
>I Googled
>combinations of words such as 'flutter altitude', 'VNE
>altitude' and
>'aircraft breakup altitude' to try and come up with
>information on
>whether the flutter/breakup characteristics of an aircraft
>are less at
>altitude than sea level at the same TAS. Intuitively
>it would seem so
>but intuition may not work here. I found nothing useful.
>I know that
>the World's ultimate high altitude motor glider the
>U2, which was
>designed in the 50s, had much study done on it with
>regard to its
>operating speed window of about 20mph (stall to breakup)at
>80k feet
>msl. There should now be declassified documents on
>those studies which
>might answer my questions. I would appreciate any pointers
>anyone. If
>I find anything useful I will summarize it on RAS.
> Flying is often unforgiving of errors and I will
>definitely be more
>vigilant after this wake up call.
>Dave
>

[John Smith]

wrote:

> My goal was to try and fly as fast as possible maintaining an altitude
> very close to 18k by speeding up in lift and slowing down in light
> lift or sink.

It's perfectly fine to do this for fun, and I'm sure you know that this
"Anti-McCready" tactic is the most inefficient possible.

> noticed my Becker transponder registering 18.2k which is, of course,
> a no no.

Transponder altitude is measured based on the standard atmosphere
pressure setting (QNE) and is not related at all to the 18'000 ft
ceiling which is based on the actual atmosphere pressure setting (QNH)
to which your altimeter should have been set.

> So what to do? If I pulled the spoilers at that speed, the shock might
> destroy them or the glider.

I've read further down that you flew a Sparrowhawk which I don't know.
But every glider I do know (all of them JAR certified European gliders)
allow for spoiler operation up to Vne. Sure, if you just yank those
spoilers fully open at Vne, you *will* break or at least bend something,
but if you hold the handle with a firm grip and operate them carefully,
then you're perfectly fine. After all, those spoilers are *designed* to
limit the dive speed at Vne! Of course, verify this with your POH first.

> This story raises some questions about VNE at various altitudes
> which should be of interest to all of us glider pilots. I Googled

You shouldn't need to Google, it should be right in your POH. Again, I
don't know the Sparrowhawk, but all the glider POHs I've seen so far
list Vne vs altitude. I usually write down these numbers and stick them
somwhere onto the instrument panel.

[[email protected]]

On Dec 31, 10:21�am, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> wrote:
> > Then I got into some real lift and pointed the
> > nose down and noticed my Becker transponder registering 18.2k which
> > is, of course, a no no.
>
> Not really - our 18,000' limit is measured with the altimeter, typically
> set by adjusting it to field elevation (msl) while on the ground. Your
> transponder was reporting the altitude measured by the encoder, which is
> set to 29.92 to measure "pressure altitude". These two measurements can
> vary by a thousand feet or more at 18,000', depending on the weather.
>
> As some of the other posters have pointed out, determining flutter
> speeds is a tricky business. "Fundamentals of Sailplane Design"
> discusses altitude effects on pages 58-60, indicating the "constant TAS"
> limit is generally very conservative, but it's best to stick to the
> flight manual or contact the manufacturer for guidance.
>
> The flight manual for my ASH 26 E uses a combination of constant IAS and
> constant TAS for Vne: it's constant IAS up to 10,000', and essentially
> constant TAS above that. That TAS value is equal to Vne (IAS) at 10,000'.
>
> I recommend the "Fundamentals..." book be on every glider pilot's
> bookshelf, and that the pilot read it through at least once. It's a
> great resource, and a better place to start than wading through a bunch
> of hits by Google.
>
> --
> 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" atwww.motorglider.org

http://711reporting.blogspot.com/

# 711.

[Bob Kuykendall]

>...So what to do?...

I think that falls under the four-Cs rule.

Bob K.

[[email protected]]

On Dec 30, 10:03*pm, " >
wrote:
> Hi Gang
> * Last week Minden had some excellent wave soaring. Off tow at 7.7k
> msl and within minutes up to 18k. I decided to go up north skirting
> Reno Intl. I had the transponder on and was monitoring Reno Approach.
> My goal was to try and fly as fast as possible maintaining an altitude
> very close to 18k by speeding up in lift and slowing down in light
> lift or sink. This worked well for the first 35 miles where my IAS
> (indicated air speed) *ranged between 50 knots and 110 knots flying
> never less than 17k. Then I got into some real lift and pointed the
> nose down and noticed my Becker transponder registering 18.2k which
> is, of course, a no no. I then glanced at the IAS. It read 138 knots
> which is 165 knots TAS. (Every 1000 feet of altitude above sea level
> results in an error of 1.5% in IAS.) So what to do? If I pulled the
> spoilers at that speed, the shock might destroy them or the glider. So
> I gently pulled the stick back and translated speed into altitude
> going above 19k. At about 70 knots I pulled the spoilers and got
> myself down to below 18k. I wonder if ATC caught that? Why was this so
> bad? Well the VNE at sea level for the SparrowHawk is 123 knots and it
> has been demonstrated that at 171 knots the wings come off. This
> really gave me cause for concern. How quickly one can get into trouble
> by not paying attention. In the future I will fly slower and use the
> spoilers to compensate for excessive lift so as to maintain altitude.
> * This story raises some questions about VNE at various altitudes
> which should be of interest to all of us glider pilots. I Googled
> combinations of words such as "flutter altitude", "VNE altitude" and
> "aircraft breakup altitude" to try and come up with information on
> whether the flutter/breakup characteristics of an aircraft are less at
> altitude than sea level at the same TAS. Intuitively it would seem so
> but intuition may not work here. I found nothing useful. I know that
> the World's ultimate high altitude motor glider the U2, which was
> designed in the 50s, had much study done on it with regard to its
> operating speed window of about 20mph (stall to breakup)at 80k feet
> msl. There should now be declassified documents on those studies which
> might answer my questions. I would appreciate any pointers anyone. If
> I find anything useful I will summarize it on RAS.
> * Flying is often unforgiving of errors and I will definitely be more
> vigilant after this wake up call.
> Dave

Should have rolled her inverted and pulled hard ;)

On a more serious note.
Attention to the altlimeter when wave flying so close to class A is
imperative.
That and looking out for the Southwest jet about to run you down on
the Reno south approach.
As you had a transponder that is not the main issue here.

Your lesson was learnt I guess so don't do it again.

I had a similar over speed experience once in my SZD59.
I was doing Acro in the wave and after about 45mins made myself pretty
sick pulling G's...
So to chill out I just soared in the nice smooth wave lift.
I climb from about 10K up to 17K whilst regaining my composure for
another acro session.

By now I was feeling better I turn upside down and start flying along
inverted.
Bored with inverted straight and level I thought "I know lets try an
inverted circle"
Initiating the bank and still at around 17K I suddenly have that panic
feeling of "I cant push the stick far enough forward to stop the dive"
As the glider accelerated very quickly in the thin air if I pulled
through it would have broken the plane up.
My only way out was to roll upright and pull G's.

As I start my roll out the ASI is up around 170knots!!
I am rolling and starting to get the nose above the horizon now.
The pull out pulled 6.5G's and gave me tunnel vision during the pull
out.

It is a VERY strong and well balanced plane that SZD59.

That was the scariest moment I ever had in my soaring career!!

Happy New Year everyone

Regards

Al

[[email protected]]

> What does your POH say about opening spoilers at high speed? Below
> Maneuvering Speed (80 kts, I checked) it shouldn't be a big deal.
> FWIW, I think you did the right thing in losing speed right now, rather
> than thinking of the FAA implications. Could the feds ground you from
> flying your ultralight anyway (probably)? ;-)

Forgive me if this strays from the thread a little, but I think it is
worth expanding on the relationships between maneuvering speed (Va),
spoilers and speeds/loads. Here is my understanding:

1. There is no relationship between Va (maneuvering speed) and
spoilers, except that Va is determined with spoilers retracted. Va is
based on pitch (elevator inputs). There is a general belief that
below Va you can do anything with any flight control, and the glider
cannot be damaged. This is may be true in some, perhaps many,
situations, but it is not true in any certification sense. [See EASA
glider regs CS 22.335]

2. Once spoilers are deployed, the loads for which the glider is
certified drop to +3.5 from +5.3 (utility) / +7.0 (aerobatic). [See
EASA glider regs CS 22.345]

For the reason stated in #2 above, "The Handbook of Glider
Aerobatics" (Mallinson and Woollard, 1999, page 30) states "It is
nearly always better to slow a glider by 'pulling g' rather than by
operating the airbrakes". They are speaking here of aerobatic gliders
(rated to 7 g's) during aerobatic maneuvers. There is some difference
in the loads/slowing that can be achieved by utility gliders. Also,
there are other considerations when using 'g' to slow (symmetric
loads, etc.). For the purposes of this discussion, I think I'm safe
with the summarization that the choice of spoiler over 'g' should not
be automatic in all situations.

This is not to say that spoilers may or may not have been an
appropriate response in the case being discussed, or many other
situations. Rather, I want to dissuade those who might feel that
spoilers are an appropriate response in every situation. Certainly
deploying spoilers and pulling high g's could be a catastrophic
combination.

I am certainly open to correction if there is an error in my analysis.

Regards,
Eric

[Herb]

John Smith (is that really your name?) wrote:
>
> I've read further down that you flew a Sparrowhawk which I don't know.
> But every glider I do know (all of them JAR certified European gliders)
> allow for spoiler operation up to Vne. Sure, if you just yank those
> spoilers fully open at Vne, you *will* break or at least bend something,
> but if you hold the handle with a firm grip and operate them carefully,
> then you're perfectly fine. After all, those spoilers are *designed* to
> limit the dive speed at Vne! Of course, verify this with your POH first.
>
> >

The times that spoilers were designed to limit speed to vne in a
vertical dive are long gone. One of the last gliders certified that
way was the Open Cirrus which I had an opportunity to test in that
configuration when diving through a hole in the clouds on a rare wave
day in Northern Germany many years ago. It never went past 200 km/h.
Certification requirements were changed later to allow for only top-
deploying spoilers that I wouldn't want to try on a dive-bombing run.

Herb Kilian, J7

[Nyal Williams]

I apologize in advance:

Do the rest of you think 'violin' is fiddling the numbers?
<grin>

HAPPY NEW YEAR

At 14:54 01 January 2008, wrote:
>> What does your POH say about opening spoilers at high
>>speed? Below
>> Maneuvering Speed (80 kts, I checked) it shouldn't
>>be a big deal.
>> FWIW, I think you did the right thing in losing speed
>>right now, rather
>> than thinking of the FAA implications. Could the
>>feds ground you from
>> flying your ultralight anyway (probably)? ;-)
>
>Forgive me if this strays from the thread a little,
>but I think it is
>worth expanding on the relationships between maneuvering
>speed (Va),
>spoilers and speeds/loads. Here is my understanding:
>
>1. There is no relationship between Va (maneuvering
>speed) and
>spoilers, except that Va is determined with spoilers
>retracted. Va is
>based on pitch (elevator inputs). There is a general
>belief that
>below Va you can do anything with any flight control,
>and the glider
>cannot be damaged. This is may be true in some, perhaps
>many,
>situations, but it is not true in any certification
>sense. [See EASA
>glider regs CS 22.335]
>
>2. Once spoilers are deployed, the loads for which
>the glider is
>certified drop to +3.5 from +5.3 (utility) / +7.0 (aerobatic).
> [See
>EASA glider regs CS 22.345]
>
>For the reason stated in #2 above, 'The Handbook of
>Glider
>Aerobatics' (Mallinson and Woollard, 1999, page 30)
>states 'It is
>nearly always better to slow a glider by 'pulling g'
>rather than by
>operating the airbrakes'. They are speaking here of
>aerobatic gliders
>(rated to 7 g's) during aerobatic maneuvers. There
>is some difference
>in the loads/slowing that can be achieved by utility
>gliders. Also,
>there are other considerations when using 'g' to slow
>(symmetric
>loads, etc.). For the purposes of this discussion,
>I think I'm safe
>with the summarization that the choice of spoiler over
>'g' should not
>be automatic in all situations.
>
>This is not to say that spoilers may or may not have
>been an
>appropriate response in the case being discussed, or
>many other
>situations. Rather, I want to dissuade those who might
>feel that
>spoilers are an appropriate response in every situation.
> Certainly
>deploying spoilers and pulling high g's could be a
>catastrophic
>combination.
>
>I am certainly open to correction if there is an error
>in my analysis.
>
>Regards,
>Eric
>

[John Smith]

Herb wrote:

> The times that spoilers were designed to limit speed to vne in a
> vertical dive are long gone.

Where did I say vertical dive? JAR asks for a 30 degrees dive, or 45
degrees if certified for aerobatics or cloud flying. Nevertheless, the
spoilers are designed to hold the speed below Vne in the discribed
situation and can be used up to that speed.

[[email protected]]

On Dec 30 2007, 10:03*pm, "
> wrote:
> Hi Gang
> * Last week Minden had some excellent wave soaring. Off tow at 7.7k
> msl and within minutes up to 18k. I decided to go up north skirting
> Reno Intl. I had the transponder on and was monitoring Reno Approach.
> My goal was to try and fly as fast as possible maintaining an altitude
> very close to 18k by speeding up in lift and slowing down in light
> lift or sink. This worked well for the first 35 miles where my IAS
> (indicated air speed) *ranged between 50 knots and 110 knots flying
> never less than 17k. Then I got into some real lift and pointed the
> nose down and noticed my Becker transponder registering 18.2k which
> is, of course, a no no. I then glanced at the IAS. It read 138 knots
> which is 165 knots TAS. (Every 1000 feet of altitude above sea level
> results in an error of 1.5% in IAS.) So what to do? If I pulled the
> spoilers at that speed, the shock might destroy them or the glider. So
> I gently pulled the stick back and translated speed into altitude
> going above 19k. At about 70 knots I pulled the spoilers and got
> myself down to below 18k. I wonder if ATC caught that? Why was this so
> bad? Well the VNE at sea level for the SparrowHawk is 123 knots and it
> has been demonstrated that at 171 knots the wings come off. This
> really gave me cause for concern. How quickly one can get into trouble
> by not paying attention. In the future I will fly slower and use the
> spoilers to compensate for excessive lift so as to maintain altitude.
> * This story raises some questions about VNE at various altitudes
> which should be of interest to all of us glider pilots. I Googled
> combinations of words such as "flutter altitude", "VNE altitude" and
> "aircraft breakup altitude" to try and come up with information on
> whether the flutter/breakup characteristics of an aircraft are less at
> altitude than sea level at the same TAS. Intuitively it would seem so
> but intuition may not work here. I found nothing useful. I know that
> the World's ultimate high altitude motor glider the U2, which was
> designed in the 50s, had much study done on it with regard to its
> operating speed window of about 20mph (stall to breakup)at 80k feet
> msl. There should now be declassified documents on those studies which
> might answer my questions. I would appreciate any pointers anyone. If
> I find anything useful I will summarize it on RAS.
> * Flying is often unforgiving of errors and I will definitely be more
> vigilant after this wake up call.
> Dave

I am very surprised that no one here, let alone yourself, thought of
the obvious: contact Reno Approach and advise them of your situation.
That would have alerted them to check for any possible conflicts and
clear the area around you of other traffic until you could get clear
of Class A airspace. You were negligent - and in violation of FARs -
by not doing this. Reno could have easily cleared you into Class A
until you could take appropriate actions. We ARE allowed to violate
FARs in an emergency, but this does not relieve you of your
responsibility to minimize the violation to the extent possible.
Fortunately, you were carrying a transponder...

Tom Seim

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jan 1, 5:01*pm, wrote:
>
> I am very surprised that no one here, let alone yourself, thought of
> the obvious: contact Reno Approach and advise them of your situation.

Hello Reno approach experimental glider Nxxxx I need to climb into
class Bravo to avoid exceeding Vne.

Experimental glider standby - American 1364 descend and maintain
14,000.

American 1364 out of 210 for 14,000

Experimental glider Nxxxx this is Reno approach say position and
altitude and say again request.

Reno I'm at 18,500 and at position yyyy and I need to continue climb
into class B to avoid structural failure.

Glider Nxxxx squawk xxxx and ident.

Never mind my wings came off!

[Michael Ash]

wrote:
> I am very surprised that no one here, let alone yourself, thought of
> the obvious: contact Reno Approach and advise them of your situation.
> That would have alerted them to check for any possible conflicts and
> clear the area around you of other traffic until you could get clear
> of Class A airspace. You were negligent - and in violation of FARs -
> by not doing this. Reno could have easily cleared you into Class A
> until you could take appropriate actions. We ARE allowed to violate
> FARs in an emergency, but this does not relieve you of your
> responsibility to minimize the violation to the extent possible.
> Fortunately, you were carrying a transponder...

Doesn't this run contrary to the standard mantra of Aviate, Navigate,
Communicate? When something bad happens, first thing you do is fly the
plane. When you're exceeding your Vne by a large factor the first step
should be to quickly reduce speed. Talking to the controlling authority of
the airspace you're violating while doing so is a good idea but it should
come dead last on the priority list. From the way the story was told, it
sounded like by the time the pilot could catch his breath and stop
worrying about his imminent demise long enough to devote some attention to
the radio, he was already back below the class A.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[J a c k[_2_]]

Andy wrote:

> Never mind my wings came off!


You missed the point. In this scenario the advice to declare an
emergency on the appropriate frequency and state your intentions/present
actions will at least keep you legal with regard to that portion of the
flight. There may still be some follow-up, of course, and you are
answerable for certain airmanship considerations which put you in that
situation to start with, but you will have done what you can to keep the
situation from being magnified by traffic conflicts. You can't have your
cake and eat it too, with regard to the regs and proper procedures, but
the best course of action involves doing the right pilot-thing NOW,
declaring an emergency as soon as possible, and filing an ASRS report
promptly after the flight. I've filed lots of them. And, I've never
waited for anything to come off the airplane prior to taking the action
needed, and then announcing the situation to ATC when reasonable to do so.

You are not asking for permission--you are telling them how it is where
you are and what you are doing about it, in order to keep them in the
loop. They will do what they can with other aircraft in the vicinity
that don't happen to be falling out of the sky at that particular moment
in order to minimize any conflicts.

_File an ASRS promptly_ after any unusual incident. It helps the system,
and it helps YOU.



Jack

[Shawn[_4_]]

J a c k wrote:
> Andy wrote:
>
>> Never mind my wings came off!
>
>
> You missed the point. In this scenario the advice to declare an
> emergency on the appropriate frequency and state your intentions/present
> actions will at least keep you legal with regard to that portion of the
> flight. There may still be some follow-up, of course, and you are
> answerable for certain airmanship considerations which put you in that
> situation to start with, but you will have done what you can to keep the
> situation from being magnified by traffic conflicts. You can't have your
> cake and eat it too, with regard to the regs and proper procedures, but
> the best course of action involves doing the right pilot-thing NOW,
> declaring an emergency as soon as possible, and filing an ASRS report
> promptly after the flight. I've filed lots of them. And, I've never
> waited for anything to come off the airplane prior to taking the action
> needed, and then announcing the situation to ATC when reasonable to do so.
>
> You are not asking for permission--you are telling them how it is where
> you are and what you are doing about it, in order to keep them in the
> loop. They will do what they can with other aircraft in the vicinity
> that don't happen to be falling out of the sky at that particular moment
> in order to minimize any conflicts.
>
> _File an ASRS promptly_ after any unusual incident. It helps the system,
> and it helps YOU.

Diverging a bit: I assume the OP is subject to regulatory action
against any license he has (presumably glider at least). However, the
glider he was flying is an ultralight and can be flown without a pilot's
license and without the glider being certficated. Can he keep flying it
(assuming it hasn't been given an N number of course)?


Shawn

[[email protected]]

On Jan 2, 9:51*am, Michael Ash > wrote:
> wrote:
> > I am very surprised that no one here, let alone yourself, thought of
> > the obvious: contact Reno Approach and advise them of your situation.
> > That would have alerted them to check for any possible conflicts and
> > clear the area around you of other traffic until you could get clear
> > of Class A airspace. You were negligent - and in violation of FARs -
> > by not doing this. Reno could have easily cleared you into Class A
> > until you could take appropriate actions. We ARE allowed to violate
> > FARs in an emergency, but this does not relieve you of your
> > responsibility to minimize the violation to the extent possible.
> > Fortunately, you were carrying a transponder...
>
> Doesn't this run contrary to the standard mantra of Aviate, Navigate,
> Communicate? When something bad happens, first thing you do is fly the
> plane. When you're exceeding your Vne by a large factor the first step
> should be to quickly reduce speed. Talking to the controlling authority of
> the airspace you're violating while doing so is a good idea but it should
> come dead last on the priority list. From the way the story was told, it
> sounded like by the time the pilot could catch his breath and stop
> worrying about his imminent demise long enough to devote some attention to
> the radio, he was already back below the class A.
>
> --
> Michael Ash
> Rogue Amoeba Software

The short answer is No. Here is what he said:

"I gently pulled the stick back and translated speed into altitude
going above 19k. At about 70 knots I pulled the spoilers and got
myself down to below 18k."

Sounds to me like he had plenty of time to do that communicate thing.
Hell, I can thermal, check airspeed and watch out for other gliders in
a gaggle while simultaneously talking on the radio. I once was dealing
with a microburst in the mountains when the controller at Hailey
wanted to know my situation (or something to that effect). I told him
I was busy and would talk to him later, which I did.

Tom

[[email protected]]

On Dec 31 2007, 7:06 am, "01-- Zero One" > wrote:
> Dave,
>
> You had another option open to you other than pulling up to slow down to
> extend brakes and therefore bumping higher into "no-no" airspace.
>
> You could have maintained your airspeed but turned left or right to get
> into weaker lift or light sink. Once you had lost enough altitude then
> eased back over into the stronger lift regions.
>
> Larry
>
> "01" USA
>
> Ventus 2bx
>
> " > wrote in message
>
> :
>
> > Hi Gang
> > Last week Minden had some excellent wave soaring. Off tow at 7.7k
> > msl and within minutes up to 18k. I decided to go up north skirting
> > Reno Intl. I had the transponder on and was monitoring Reno Approach.
> > My goal was to try and fly as fast as possible maintaining an altitude
> > very close to 18k by speeding up in lift and slowing down in light
> > lift or sink. This worked well for the first 35 miles where my IAS
> > (indicated air speed) ranged between 50 knots and 110 knots flying
> > never less than 17k. Then I got into some real lift and pointed the
> > nose down and noticed my Becker transponder registering 18.2k which
> > is, of course, a no no. I then glanced at the IAS. It read 138 knots
> > which is 165 knots TAS. (Every 1000 feet of altitude above sea level
> > results in an error of 1.5% in IAS.) So what to do? If I pulled the
> > spoilers at that speed, the shock might destroy them or the glider. So
> > I gently pulled the stick back and translated speed into altitude
> > going above 19k. At about 70 knots I pulled the spoilers and got
> > myself down to below 18k. I wonder if ATC caught that? Why was this so
> > bad? Well the VNE at sea level for the SparrowHawk is 123 knots and it
> > has been demonstrated that at 171 knots the wings come off. This
> > really gave me cause for concern. How quickly one can get into trouble
> > by not paying attention. In the future I will fly slower and use the
> > spoilers to compensate for excessive lift so as to maintain altitude.
> > This story raises some questions about VNE at various altitudes
> > which should be of interest to all of us glider pilots. I Googled
> > combinations of words such as "flutter altitude", "VNE altitude" and
> > "aircraft breakup altitude" to try and come up with information on
> > whether the flutter/breakup characteristics of an aircraft are less at
> > altitude than sea level at the same TAS. Intuitively it would seem so
> > but intuition may not work here. I found nothing useful. I know that
> > the World's ultimate high altitude motor glider the U2, which was
> > designed in the 50s, had much study done on it with regard to its
> > operating speed window of about 20mph (stall to breakup)at 80k feet
> > msl. There should now be declassified documents on those studies which
> > might answer my questions. I would appreciate any pointers anyone. If
> > I find anything useful I will summarize it on RAS.
> > Flying is often unforgiving of errors and I will definitely be more
> > vigilant after this wake up call.
> > Dave

If I recall from training days, you can lose altitude faster in a
descending turn than you can in a straight line, even at the same
speed.
I don't think I can explain this late at night why I think this works,
but it sort of makes sense.

[kirk.stant]

> If I recall from training days, you can lose altitude faster in a
> descending turn than you can in a straight line, even at the same
> speed.
> I don't think I can explain this late at night why I think this works,
> but it sort of makes sense.- Hide quoted text -


It's due to the increased G's in a turn. Steeper turn, more G's, more
drag due to lift required to offset the Gs.

Same reason sink rate increases as you thermal steeper.

A bunch of G also helps keep the speed down in a steep, descending
turn (not a spiral, of course).

Perhaps time to hit the books again?

Kirk
66

[[email protected]]

On Jan 2, 10:10*am, J a c k > wrote:

...the best course of action involves doing the right pilot-thing NOW,
declaring an emergency as soon as possible, and filing an ASRS report
promptly after the flight.

I would add a few points to amplify this basically sound logic:

1) Fly the airplane
2) Fly the airplane
3) Fly the airplane

If you need to go into controlled airspace without permission to
prevent destruction of your airplane and yourself, do not hesitate. Do
what you need to do to get back to a safe flying condition. If you get
back down bellow 18k promptly it might make sense to call ATC, but I'm
not sure what real purpose it serves other than meeting some FAR on
reporting youself appropriately and that need might be better served
through some other means than a radio call. Secondly, I'm not sure why
you'd hang out above 18k long enough to make the call before decending
via spoilers, but I guess it could happen. I think I'd be too busy
flying the airplane.

The airmanship point bears repeating in this case and in general.
Whenever you are flying near a limit (controlled airspace, Vne, severe
weather, terrain!) you need to exercise extra caution and presume that
conditions outside your control (lift, sink, gusts) could conspire
against you in the least favorable possible ways. I have seen many
people fly under these circumstances assuming that those conditions
will remain within (or close to) the ranges they have personally
experienced - I think it is prudent to assume something much less
favorable and keep margins appropriate to those assumptions. This
applies as much to assumptions about expected sink on final glide and
it does to assumptions about lift near 18,000'. One needs to be very
cautious about watching climb rate when above 17,000', particularly if
carrying any significant energy in the form of airspeed.

9B

[[email protected]]

On Jan 8, 8:15*am, wrote:
> On Jan 2, 10:10*am, J a c k > wrote:
>
> ...the best course of action involves doing the right pilot-thing NOW,
> declaring an emergency as soon as possible, and filing an ASRS report
> promptly after the flight.
>
> I would add a few points to amplify this basically sound logic:
>
> 1) Fly the airplane
> 2) Fly the airplane
> 3) Fly the airplane
>
> If you need to go into controlled airspace without permission to
> prevent destruction of your airplane and yourself, do not hesitate. Do
> what you need to do to get back to a safe flying condition. If you get
> back down bellow 18k promptly it might make sense to call ATC, but I'm
> not sure what real purpose it serves other than meeting some FAR on
> reporting youself appropriately and that need might be better served
> through some other means than a radio call. Secondly, I'm not sure why
> you'd hang out above 18k long enough to make the call before decending
> via spoilers, but I guess it could happen. I think I'd be too busy
> flying the airplane.
>
> The airmanship point bears repeating in this case and in general.
> Whenever you are flying near a limit (controlled airspace, Vne, severe
> weather, terrain!) you need to exercise extra caution and presume that
> conditions outside your control (lift, sink, gusts) could conspire
> against you in the least favorable possible ways. I have seen many
> people fly under these circumstances assuming that those conditions
> will remain within (or close to) the ranges they have personally
> experienced - I think it is prudent to assume something much less
> favorable and keep margins appropriate to those assumptions. This
> applies as much to assumptions about expected sink on final glide and
> it does to assumptions about lift near 18,000'. One needs to be very
> cautious about watching climb rate when above 17,000', particularly if
> carrying any significant energy in the form of airspeed.
>
> 9B


What part of the word "mid-air" don't you understand?

Following your logic the other principals of airmanship are:

5. Don't navigate.
6. Don't communicate.

This guy was already stabilized, in control and in no immediate danger
of breaking up. Although he was, in my opinion, foolish to be flying
at Vne to begin with. He could have easily contacted Reno Approach w/o
compromising his safety. I just don't get your guy's logic; apparently
it is "We don't talk to controllers under any circumstances".

Let me be very clear: entering controlled airspace w/o clearance
endangers other people's lives. PERIOD. To think that this is just
some FAR technicality that you do if you feel like it is beyond me. If
you don't think you are willing or able to follow FARs you should STAY
ON THE GROUND! Remember, this is a priviledge that can be revoked.

Tom Seim

[[email protected]]

On Jan 8, 2:26*pm, wrote:
> On Jan 8, 8:15*am, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 2, 10:10*am, J a c k > wrote:
>
> > ...the best course of action involves doing the right pilot-thing NOW,
> > declaring an emergency as soon as possible, and filing an ASRS report
> > promptly after the flight.
>
> > I would add a few points to amplify this basically sound logic:
>
> > 1) Fly the airplane
> > 2) Fly the airplane
> > 3) Fly the airplane
>
> > If you need to go into controlled airspace without permission to
> > prevent destruction of your airplane and yourself, do not hesitate. Do
> > what you need to do to get back to a safe flying condition. If you get
> > back down bellow 18k promptly it might make sense to call ATC, but I'm
> > not sure what real purpose it serves other than meeting some FAR on
> > reporting youself appropriately and that need might be better served
> > through some other means than a radio call. Secondly, I'm not sure why
> > you'd hang out above 18k long enough to make the call before decending
> > via spoilers, but I guess it could happen. I think I'd be too busy
> > flying the airplane.
>
> > The airmanship point bears repeating in this case and in general.
> > Whenever you are flying near a limit (controlled airspace, Vne, severe
> > weather, terrain!) you need to exercise extra caution and presume that
> > conditions outside your control (lift, sink, gusts) could conspire
> > against you in the least favorable possible ways. I have seen many
> > people fly under these circumstances assuming that those conditions
> > will remain within (or close to) the ranges they have personally
> > experienced - I think it is prudent to assume something much less
> > favorable and keep margins appropriate to those assumptions. This
> > applies as much to assumptions about expected sink on final glide and
> > it does to assumptions about lift near 18,000'. One needs to be very
> > cautious about watching climb rate when above 17,000', particularly if
> > carrying any significant energy in the form of airspeed.
>
> > 9B
>
> What part of the word "mid-air" don't you understand?
>
> Following your logic the other principals of airmanship are:
>
> 5. Don't navigate.
> 6. Don't communicate.
>
> This guy was already stabilized, in control and in no immediate danger
> of breaking up. Although he was, in my opinion, foolish to be flying
> at Vne to begin with. He could have easily contacted Reno Approach w/o
> compromising his safety. I just don't get your guy's logic; apparently
> it is "We don't talk to controllers under any circumstances".
>
> Let me be very clear: entering controlled airspace w/o clearance
> endangers other people's lives. PERIOD. To think that this is just
> some FAR technicality that you do if you feel like it is beyond me. If
> you don't think you are willing or able to follow FARs you should STAY
> ON THE GROUND! Remember, this is a priviledge that can be revoked.
>
> Tom Seim- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Oh Tom - you are such a grumpy fellow.

I've got nothing against navigating and communicating - I do it all
the time. I think most of the people on this thread feel the same way.
I just think they are irrelevant if you don't fly the airplane first
which it the number one risk factor in Dave's scenario. It's not like
18,000 is broken to overcast with aluminum even around Reno.

Secondly, if you do the math, a pullup from Vne to spoiler speed and
back down takes aboiut a minute, unless you fart around before you pop
the boards. If I'm at Vne and rising at altitude with an uncertain
flutter margin the last thing I want to do is get my chart out, find
the ATC freq, call them up, go back and forth as they sort out who I
am and, if I have a trasponder, give me and ident code so they can
find me and give me traffic advisories. I'm in all likelihood back
below 18,000' before they even can figure it all out and do anything
to help me. Simple.

Now, if you are already talking to them for some other reason or have
a transponder, then they already know where you are and have already
routed trafffic to avoid you. Believe it or not, the controllers don't
make a sport out of seeing how close the can fly traffic together, so
they'll give gliders a pretty good clearance form traffic.BUT, if you
are already talking to them it makes sense to let them know if you are
doing something unexpected. I'd just fly the airplane first because
the risk of breaking the airplane in my judgement far exceeds the risk
of a midair.

I am prepared for your next personal attack.

9B

[Tony Verhulst]

> If you need to go into controlled airspace without permission


[CFI mode]
I fly in controlled airspace all the time and rarely get permission.
Controlled airspace does not mean that you have to talk to a controller.
Class E airspace is controlled airspace and is the such best example.
The only uncontrolled airspace (in the U.S.) is class G airspace.

Wikipedia, though never authoritative, provides this (accurate)
description - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_airspace.

[/CFI mode]

Tony V. CFI-G

[[email protected]]

On Jan 8, 5:40*pm, wrote:
> On Jan 8, 2:26*pm, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 8:15*am, wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 2, 10:10*am, J a c k > wrote:
>
> > > ...the best course of action involves doing the right pilot-thing NOW,
> > > declaring an emergency as soon as possible, and filing an ASRS report
> > > promptly after the flight.
>
> > > I would add a few points to amplify this basically sound logic:
>
> > > 1) Fly the airplane
> > > 2) Fly the airplane
> > > 3) Fly the airplane
>
> > > If you need to go into controlled airspace without permission to
> > > prevent destruction of your airplane and yourself, do not hesitate. Do
> > > what you need to do to get back to a safe flying condition. If you get
> > > back down bellow 18k promptly it might make sense to call ATC, but I'm
> > > not sure what real purpose it serves other than meeting some FAR on
> > > reporting youself appropriately and that need might be better served
> > > through some other means than a radio call. Secondly, I'm not sure why
> > > you'd hang out above 18k long enough to make the call before decending
> > > via spoilers, but I guess it could happen. I think I'd be too busy
> > > flying the airplane.
>
> > > The airmanship point bears repeating in this case and in general.
> > > Whenever you are flying near a limit (controlled airspace, Vne, severe
> > > weather, terrain!) you need to exercise extra caution and presume that
> > > conditions outside your control (lift, sink, gusts) could conspire
> > > against you in the least favorable possible ways. I have seen many
> > > people fly under these circumstances assuming that those conditions
> > > will remain within (or close to) the ranges they have personally
> > > experienced - I think it is prudent to assume something much less
> > > favorable and keep margins appropriate to those assumptions. This
> > > applies as much to assumptions about expected sink on final glide and
> > > it does to assumptions about lift near 18,000'. One needs to be very
> > > cautious about watching climb rate when above 17,000', particularly if
> > > carrying any significant energy in the form of airspeed.
>
> > > 9B
>
> > What part of the word "mid-air" don't you understand?
>
> > Following your logic the other principals of airmanship are:
>
> > 5. Don't navigate.
> > 6. Don't communicate.
>
> > This guy was already stabilized, in control and in no immediate danger
> > of breaking up. Although he was, in my opinion, foolish to be flying
> > at Vne to begin with. He could have easily contacted Reno Approach w/o
> > compromising his safety. I just don't get your guy's logic; apparently
> > it is "We don't talk to controllers under any circumstances".
>
> > Let me be very clear: entering controlled airspace w/o clearance
> > endangers other people's lives. PERIOD. To think that this is just
> > some FAR technicality that you do if you feel like it is beyond me. If
> > you don't think you are willing or able to follow FARs you should STAY
> > ON THE GROUND! Remember, this is a priviledge that can be revoked.
>
> > Tom Seim- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Oh Tom - you are such a grumpy fellow.
>
> I've got nothing against navigating and communicating - I do it all
> the time. I think most of the people on this thread feel the same way.
> I just think they are irrelevant if you don't fly the airplane first
> which it the number one risk factor in Dave's scenario. It's not like
> 18,000 is broken to overcast with aluminum even around Reno.
>
> Secondly, if you do the math, a pullup from Vne to spoiler speed and
> back down takes aboiut a minute, unless you fart around before you pop
> the boards. If I'm at Vne and rising at altitude with an uncertain
> flutter margin the last thing I want to do is get my chart out, find
> the ATC freq, call them up, go back and forth as they sort out who I
> am and, if I have a trasponder, give me and ident code so they can
> find me and give me traffic advisories. I'm in all likelihood back
> below 18,000' before they even can figure it all out and do anything
> to help me. Simple.
>
> Now, if you are already talking to them for some other reason or have
> a transponder, then they already know where you are and have already
> routed trafffic to avoid you. Believe it or not, the controllers don't
> make a sport out of seeing how close the can fly traffic together, so
> they'll give gliders a pretty good clearance form traffic.BUT, if you
> are already talking to them it makes sense to let them know if you are
> doing something unexpected. I'd just fly the airplane first because
> the risk of breaking the airplane in my judgement far exceeds the risk
> of a midair.
>
> I am prepared for your next personal attack.
>
> 9B- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It was you who removed the navigate and communicate from the
aforementioned list, not me. This certainly does imply you have
something against communicating. Busting class A by 1K ft is a BIG
deal - you have NO IDEA where the other a/c are around you.

What is distressing to me is the whole issue could be made moot by a
simple - a short - communication with ATC. Yet all I got from you and
your ilk is how much of a drag it is to talk to those guys.

This IS endangering other people - your trying to minimize that fact
will NOT change it.

Now, go ahead, tell me how safe it is to fly around class A w/o
authorization - I am ready!

Tom

[Michael Ash]

wrote:
> What part of the word "mid-air" don't you understand?

Ignoring all questions of law for a moment, is it *actually* more likely
to have a mid-air at 19,000ft than at 17,500ft? They don't have to keep
the traffic above 18,000ft, after all, but I don't really know what common
practice is, and especially not in that area. If the answer is that yes,
it is more likely, what are the actual odds of having one in each area?

> Following your logic the other principals of airmanship are:
>
> 5. Don't navigate.
> 6. Don't communicate.

Add "until you have attention to spare from aviating" to #5 and "until you
have attention to spare from navigating" to #6.

> This guy was already stabilized, in control and in no immediate danger
> of breaking up. Although he was, in my opinion, foolish to be flying
> at Vne to begin with. He could have easily contacted Reno Approach w/o
> compromising his safety. I just don't get your guy's logic; apparently
> it is "We don't talk to controllers under any circumstances".

Speaking only for myself, of course, but just because the story we got
sounded relatively docile doesn't mean it was that way in the cockpit.
Different people have different capacities for verbal communication under
stress. You mentioned talking to a controller while dealing with a
microburst in the mountains. I don't doubt that you're capable of handling
that well, but it doesn't mean everyone is.

I would never say that he *shouldn't* contact ATC in these circumstances,
but only that a failure to do during the emergency isn't necessarily
negligent. If he really didn't have the attention or presence of mind to
use the radio while dealing with his situation, then concentrating on the
flying is the right thing to do. I won't comment on calling them once
things had calmed down again since I really don't know about that one.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[[email protected]]

On Jan 8, 6:09*pm, Tony Verhulst > wrote:
> > If you need to go into controlled airspace without permission
>
> [CFI mode]
> I fly in controlled airspace all the time and rarely get permission.
> Controlled airspace does not mean that you have to talk to a controller.
> Class E airspace is controlled airspace and is the such best example.
> The only uncontrolled airspace (in the U.S.) is class G airspace.
>
> Wikipedia, though never authoritative, provides this (accurate)
> description -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_airspace.
>
> [/CFI mode]
>
> Tony V. CFI-G

Tony,

Thanks for the clarification. Clearly, I ment CLASS A controlled
airspace, vs controlled airspace. Of course, this changes absolutely
everything!

Tom

[[email protected]]

On Jan 8, 7:41*pm, Michael Ash > wrote:
> wrote:
> > What part of the word "mid-air" don't you understand?
>
> Ignoring all questions of law for a moment, is it *actually* more likely
> to have a mid-air at 19,000ft than at 17,500ft? They don't have to keep
> the traffic above 18,000ft, after all, but I don't really know what common
> practice is, and especially not in that area. If the answer is that yes,
> it is more likely, what are the actual odds of having one in each area?
>
> > Following your logic the other principals of airmanship are:
>
> > 5. Don't navigate.
> > 6. Don't communicate.
>
> Add "until you have attention to spare from aviating" to #5 and "until you
> have attention to spare from navigating" to #6.
>
> > This guy was already stabilized, in control and in no immediate danger
> > of breaking up. Although he was, in my opinion, foolish to be flying
> > at Vne to begin with. He could have easily contacted Reno Approach w/o
> > compromising his safety. I just don't get your guy's logic; apparently
> > it is "We don't talk to controllers under any circumstances".
>
> Speaking only for myself, of course, but just because the story we got
> sounded relatively docile doesn't mean it was that way in the cockpit.
> Different people have different capacities for verbal communication under
> stress. You mentioned talking to a controller while dealing with a
> microburst in the mountains. I don't doubt that you're capable of handling
> that well, but it doesn't mean everyone is.
>
> I would never say that he *shouldn't* contact ATC in these circumstances,
> but only that a failure to do during the emergency isn't necessarily
> negligent. If he really didn't have the attention or presence of mind to
> use the radio while dealing with his situation, then concentrating on the
> flying is the right thing to do. I won't comment on calling them once
> things had calmed down again since I really don't know about that one.
>
> --
> Michael Ash
> Rogue Amoeba Software

What, exactly, are you trying (but failing) to say? Let me guess - and
feel free to correct me if I am wrong - is it "The probability of
having a mid-air in Class A is so low that we are excused from
following FARs". I just don't recall running into an FAR the says "You
can ignore this FAR if the probability is less than xxx%", did I miss
something here?

> I would never say that he *shouldn't* contact ATC in these circumstances,
> but only that a failure to do during the emergency isn't necessarily
> negligent.

Are you serious, or are you joking? I strongly recommend you discuss
this with the FAA and get their take on it. Don't have their phone
number? Just let me know & I will look it up!

Here a few FARs that you should review before you make this
(interesting?) call:

91.13(a) Careless or reckless operation of an aircraft.
91.135(a) Clearance
91.135(b) Communications

You might also ask them about "negligence". For your preparation, I
found this definition:

NEGLIGENCE - The failure to use reasonable care. The doing of
something which a reasonably prudent person would not do, or the
failure to do something which a reasonably prudent person would do
under like circumstances.

Please report back with their comments. You don't have any problem
with doing this, do you? Do you want me to do it for you?

Tom Seim

[[email protected]]

On Jan 8, 8:29*pm, wrote:
> On Jan 8, 6:09*pm, Tony Verhulst > wrote:
>
> > > If you need to go into controlled airspace without permission
>
> > [CFI mode]
> > I fly in controlled airspace all the time and rarely get permission.
> > Controlled airspace does not mean that you have to talk to a controller.
> > Class E airspace is controlled airspace and is the such best example.
> > The only uncontrolled airspace (in the U.S.) is class G airspace.
>
> > Wikipedia, though never authoritative, provides this (accurate)
> > description -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_airspace.
>
> > [/CFI mode]
>
> > Tony V. CFI-G
>
> Tony,
>
> Thanks for the clarification. Clearly, I ment CLASS A controlled
> airspace, vs controlled airspace. Of course, this changes absolutely
> everything!
>
> Tom


Waiter, some Lithium for my friend Tom.

Remember the original scenario. Dave finds himself at 18,200' at some
scary number of knots over Vne - IN A SPARROWHAWK. Those things weigh
like 145 pounds empty - not exactly the aircraft I want to use for
testing aeroelastic theory. He has his transponder on so ATC sees him.
He is monitoring Reno Approach so he would be aware of traffic
reporting in an area of concern to him.

So if I am Dave in that situation I'm first of all trying to not poop
in my pants. Second, I am trying to get the airspeed down quickly but
without overstresing the airplane or changing the loading in a way
that sets off flutter (a big unknown on what to do there, so more
pucker in the old sphincter). Third, I am getting the boards out as
soon as I feel safe to do so and pushing back over for the quickest
decent I can safely manage. The whole operation is maybe 45 seconds of
pure adrenaline.

So somewhere in here Dave gets to stop thinking aviate and start
thinking navigate. The stop at navigate is short (Dave knows where he
is). So now he can move on to communicate. So the relevant question
is, where does Dave make the transition from aviate through navigate
up to communicate? All while still holding his bowels. Is it the
instant he gets below Vne? While he's still maybe 30 degrees nose up
and losing airspeed? Before the zero-G push over, popping the
divebreaks for the 45-degree decent to 18,000' and below? Is is during
the decent? Is it before the pullup? Or does Dave just push forward on
the stick to get immediately back below below 18k, poop his pants, and
wait for permission to save his own life (that is, should he jump
straight to communicate - probably in falsetto).

One could also make the argument that Dave pull up, get down to a
reasonable speed, pause at 19k, call ATC and have a conversation about
what to do before going back into aviate mode for a more sedate decent
where multitasking is again fully operating for him. That might be a
reasonable course of action, but he will be spending a lot more time
in the Class A and there is probably a question about how long it
takes ATC to sort him out. If he didn't have his transponder on it
might take some time to sort out exactly where he is relative to other
traffic, whether or not he can maintain a constant altitude and
bearing given all the wave up/down, etc. If he didn't have his radio
on ATC then he'd have to locate the freq (if not committed to memory),
dial it up and establish contact all while farting around at 19k.

If he's got nerves of steel and the multitasking ability of a figher
jock making a radio call that's more informative than Tom's self-
described, micro-burst, "I'm busy" would be in order right in the
middle of the highest workload part, but I for one would give him
credit for landing with clean trousers.

Thanks for sharing with us Dave.

9B

[Tony Verhulst]

> Thanks for the clarification. Clearly, I ment CLASS A controlled
> airspace, vs controlled airspace. Of course, this changes absolutely
> everything!


Sorry, it's become one of my "buttons" over the years. While
administering BFRs, I've discovered that the percentage of rated pilots
who believe that you have to talk to controllers in controlled airspace
is absolutely astounding.

Tony V.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 9, 5:56*am, Tony Verhulst > wrote:
> > Thanks for the clarification. Clearly, I ment CLASS A controlled
> > airspace, vs controlled airspace. Of course, this changes absolutely
> > everything!
>
> Sorry, it's become one of my "buttons" over the years. While
> administering BFRs, I've discovered that the percentage of rated pilots
> who believe that you have to talk to controllers in controlled airspace
> is absolutely astounding.
>
> Tony V.

I don't understand why the FAA uses the term "controlled" when it
isn't controlled at all (except in the most legalistic sense). Worse,
it creates confusion w/pilots. I know the difference, but when I say
"controlled" I mean "actively controlled".

Tom

[Michael Ash]

wrote:
> What, exactly, are you trying (but failing) to say? Let me guess - and
> feel free to correct me if I am wrong - is it "The probability of
> having a mid-air in Class A is so low that we are excused from
> following FARs". I just don't recall running into an FAR the says "You
> can ignore this FAR if the probability is less than xxx%", did I miss
> something here?

I asked about the probability of a mid-air in the two regions for two
reasons:

First, I'm genuinely curious.

Second, you're using the chance of a mid-air collision as one reason why
not calling ATC was bad. This carries with it an implicit assumption that
the probability of a mid-air was higher when he was above 18,000ft, but
there's no explanation of this assumption. I'd like to see this justified,
particularly because I'm genuinely curious.

Now, if it turns out that you're actually safer from a mid-air above
18,000ft, I'm certainly not going to start violating the class A for fun.
It obviously doesn't justify violating the class A and I never said it
did. I'd just like to know.

>> I would never say that he *shouldn't* contact ATC in these circumstances,
>> but only that a failure to do during the emergency isn't necessarily
>> negligent.
>
> Are you serious, or are you joking? I strongly recommend you discuss
> this with the FAA and get their take on it. Don't have their phone
> number? Just let me know & I will look it up!
>
> Here a few FARs that you should review before you make this
> (interesting?) call:
>
> 91.13(a) Careless or reckless operation of an aircraft.
> 91.135(a) Clearance
> 91.135(b) Communications
>
> You might also ask them about "negligence". For your preparation, I
> found this definition:
>
> NEGLIGENCE - The failure to use reasonable care. The doing of
> something which a reasonably prudent person would not do, or the
> failure to do something which a reasonably prudent person would do
> under like circumstances.
>
> Please report back with their comments. You don't have any problem
> with doing this, do you? Do you want me to do it for you?

My understanding that these rules mostly go out the window in an
emergency. Finding yourself greatly exceeding Vne certainly qualifies as
one. Top priority is to stop exceeding Vne. Second priority is to get the
heck out of the class A. Third priority is to tell the controlling agency
what's going on. If priorities 1 and 2 didn't allow time for 3, that
hardly seems negligent to me.

There *may* have been negligence in exceeding Vne in the first place, I
won't comment on that. But I don't see how it's negligent to leave the
radio alone while saving the glider once that happened.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Andreas Maurer]

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 17:40:06 -0800 (PST), wrote:



>Secondly, if you do the math, a pullup from Vne to spoiler speed and
>back down takes aboiut a minute,

Just a technical question:
In all the gliders I've flown so far Vne is identical to spoiler speed
(read: You can extend the spoilers up to Vne).

Do there really gliders exist where the spoilers cannot be operated up
to Vne?


Bye
Andreas

[Philip Plane]

Andreas Maurer wrote:

> Just a technical question:
> In all the gliders I've flown so far Vne is identical to spoiler speed
> (read: You can extend the spoilers up to Vne).
>
> Do there really gliders exist where the spoilers cannot be operated up
> to Vne?

I wouldn't say 'cannot', but on my DG1000 the brakes are hard to get on
and off the overcenter lock at high speed. Due to wing flex I expect. Hard
enough that I have done a high speed final glide holding the brakes closed
because I couldn't get them locked. 'High speed' would be something over
100 knots.

I noticed the same thing in a Libelle 201 when I tried using the brakes
at high speed.

--
Philip Plane _____
|
---------------( )---------------
Glider pilots have no visible means of support

[[email protected]]

On Jan 9, 8:48*am, Andreas Maurer > wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 17:40:06 -0800 (PST), wrote:
> >Secondly, if you do the math, a pullup from Vne to spoiler speed and
> >back down takes aboiut a minute,
>
> Just a technical question:
> In all the gliders I've flown so far Vne is identical to spoiler speed
> (read: You can extend the spoilers up to Vne).
>
> Do there really gliders exist where the spoilers cannot be operated up
> to Vne?
>

I think the concern is more that when you open the spoilers you load
up the wing outboard of the spoilers and might create bending moments
that would break the spar - especially above Vne. It's always a good
idea to be familiar with this part of the operating manual for the
specific sailplane type you're flying as you won't habe time to look
it up when you need to know. In any event it would be a wild ride.

9B

[[email protected]]

On Jan 8, 10:07*pm, wrote:
> On Jan 8, 8:29*pm, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 6:09*pm, Tony Verhulst > wrote:
>
> > > > If you need to go into controlled airspace without permission
>
> > > [CFI mode]
> > > I fly in controlled airspace all the time and rarely get permission.
> > > Controlled airspace does not mean that you have to talk to a controller.

[Martin Gregorie[_1_]]

Philip Plane wrote:
>
> I noticed the same thing in a Libelle 201 when I tried using the brakes
> at high speed.
>
Out of curiosity, do you remember the speed at which you tried that?

The fastest I've opened them to date was 70 kts. Mine's a 201 (not B
series). They opened as easily as usual (mine has a pretty fierce over
center even when stationary) but the deceleration was immediately
noticeable - I thought that wasn't bad at all for a glider thats famous
for having weak brakes!


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

[[email protected]]

On Jan 9, 12:52*pm, wrote:
> On Jan 8, 10:07*pm, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 8:29*pm, wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 8, 6:09*pm, Tony Verhulst > wrote:
>
> > > > > If you need to go into controlled airspace without permission
>
> > > > [CFI mode]
> > > > I fly in controlled airspace all the time and rarely get permission.
> > > > Controlled airspace does not mean that you have to talk to a controller.
> > > > Class E airspace is controlled airspace and is the such best example..
> > > > The only uncontrolled airspace (in the U.S.) is class G airspace.
>
> > > > Wikipedia, though never authoritative, provides this (accurate)
> > > > description -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_airspace.
>
> > > > [/CFI mode]
>
> > > > Tony V. CFI-G
>
> > > Tony,
>
> > > Thanks for the clarification. Clearly, I ment CLASS A controlled
> > > airspace, vs controlled airspace. Of course, this changes absolutely
> > > everything!
>
> > > Tom
>
> > Waiter, some Lithium for my friend Tom.
>
> > Remember the original scenario. Dave finds himself at 18,200' at some
> > scary number of knots over Vne - IN A SPARROWHAWK. Those things weigh
> > like 145 pounds empty - not exactly the aircraft I want to use for
> > testing aeroelastic theory. He has his transponder on so ATC sees him.
> > He is monitoring Reno Approach so he would be aware of traffic
> > reporting in an area of concern to him.
>
> > So if I am Dave in that situation I'm first of all trying to not poop
> > in my pants. Second, I am trying to get the airspeed down quickly but
> > without overstresing the airplane or changing the loading in a way
> > that sets off flutter (a big unknown on what to do there, so more
> > pucker in the old sphincter). Third, I am getting the boards out as
> > soon as I feel safe to do so and pushing back over for the quickest
> > decent I can safely manage. The whole operation is maybe 45 seconds of
> > pure adrenaline.
>
> > So somewhere in here Dave gets to stop thinking aviate and start
> > thinking navigate. The stop at navigate is short (Dave knows where he
> > is). So now he can move on to communicate. So the relevant question
> > is, where does Dave make the transition from aviate through navigate
> > up to communicate? All while still holding his bowels. Is it the
> > instant he gets below Vne? While he's still maybe 30 degrees nose up
> > and losing airspeed? Before the zero-G push over, popping the
> > divebreaks for the 45-degree decent to 18,000' and below? Is is during
> > the decent? Is it before the pullup? Or does Dave just push forward on
> > the stick to get immediately back below below 18k, poop his pants, and
> > wait for permission to save his own life (that is, should he jump
> > straight to communicate - probably in falsetto).
>
> > One could also make the argument that Dave pull up, get down to a
> > reasonable speed, pause at 19k, call ATC and have a conversation about
> > what to do before going back into aviate mode for a more sedate decent
> > where multitasking is again fully operating for him. That might be a
> > reasonable course of action, but he will be spending a lot more time
> > in the Class A and there is probably a question about how long it
> > takes ATC to sort him out. If he didn't have his transponder on it
> > might take some time to sort out exactly where he is relative to other
> > traffic, whether or not he can maintain a constant altitude and
> > bearing given all the wave up/down, etc. If he didn't have his radio
> > on ATC then he'd have to locate the freq (if not committed to memory),
> > dial it up and establish contact all while farting around at 19k.
>
> > If he's got nerves of steel and the multitasking ability of a figher
> > jock making a radio call that's more informative than Tom's self-
> > described, micro-burst, "I'm busy" would be in order right in the
> > middle of the highest workload part, but I for one would give him
> > credit for landing with clean trousers.
>
> > Thanks for sharing with us Dave.
>
> > 9B- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Ok, very funny - you are obviously not trying to make a serious post
> here and you should be ignored. Fine, you get your wish. Hopefully no
> one else takes anything you say seriously as there are consequences,
> some extreme.
>
> Tom- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text

Tom,

There's are several serious points in there - may be too subtle for a
guy who is sometimes right but never uncertain.

Honestly, I thought it was pretty arrogant of you to assert so
stridently what the situation was in the cockpit for Dave and what he
should or shouldn't have done with respect to flying the airplane
versus using the radio. I also thought your choice of adjectives
("neglegent" for instance) was particularly offensive. Finally, you
style of argument where you distort what others say, take ideas out of
context and personally attack anyone who you think might disagree with
you is reminiscent of a precocious 12 year old boy with poor impulse
control.

I also think your advice, and particularly the style in which you give
it doesn't advance the cause of safety.When people see the world in
such sharp contrast and adhere to fixed procedures or slogans at the
expense of thinking and adapting the the situation - that's when
extremely bad things happen.

At least one purpose of this forum is to share the types of incidents
that Dave experienced so we can all think about them, discuss them and
learn. The "you're all knuckleheads let me tell what the only right
answer is" doesn't encourage an open exchange at all.

I thought a little humor might allow you to open up your thinking and
see things from a different perspective - my mistake.

- Andy

[Tony Verhulst]

> I don't understand why the FAA uses the term "controlled" when it
> isn't controlled at all (except in the most legalistic sense). Worse,
> it creates confusion w/pilots. I know the difference, but when I say
> "controlled" I mean "actively controlled".


No argument from me - it was a stupid choice of terms. Not a month goes
by where I don't have to "re-educate" a pilot during a BFR about what
controlled airspace really means.

Tom, I know that you think that I was being pedantic. I'm sorry. I did
know that you *meant* class A airspace but you miss-used the term. And,
given the number of students here and the controlled airspace
terminology confusion, I thought that the correction was appropriate. YMMV.

Tony V. LS6-b "6N"

[John Smith]

Tony Verhulst wrote:

> No argument from me - it was a stupid choice of terms. Not a month goes
> by where I don't have to "re-educate" a pilot during a BFR about what
> controlled airspace really means.

Actually, the term is absolutely correct and not a stupid choice at all.
In class E airspace there is IFR traffic on an IFR clearance. So that
airspace *is* controlled. For IFR traffic, anyway.

The confusion is that some pilots say "controlled" when they actually
mean "with ATC provided separation".

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Jan 8, 2:26*pm, wrote:
> What part of the word "mid-air" don't you understand?

Dang, that's where I should have cooked up some popcorn. Back in the
day, who knows, maybe a hockey game would break out?

Phrases of the form "What part of [x, y, or z] don't you
understand..." hold such an intense presumption of ignorance that they
tend to valance all subsequent exchange. Very rarely will anything
constructive follow.

Thanks, Bob K.

[Andreas Maurer[_1_]]

On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 11:59:29 -0800 (PST), wrote:


>I think the concern is more that when you open the spoilers you load
>up the wing outboard of the spoilers and might create bending moments
>that would break the spar - especially above Vne.

Never.
As long as you don't pull really high g-loads (as it was the case in
that Nimbus 4 crash), this is not going to happen.


> It's always a good
>idea to be familiar with this part of the operating manual for the
>specific sailplane type you're flying as you won't habe time to look
>it up when you need to know. In any event it would be a wild ride.

This is why I asked - so far I haven't met a glider yet whose POH
didn't allow airbrake extension up to Vne.


Bye
Andreas

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Jan 9, 4:49*pm, Andreas Maurer > wrote:
>...so far I haven't met a glider yet whose POH
> didn't allow airbrake extension up to Vne.

So far, I've never owned a glider that had a POH. Or airbrakes.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 9, 4:49*pm, Andreas Maurer > wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 11:59:29 -0800 (PST), wrote:
> >I think the concern is more that when you open the spoilers you load
> >up the wing outboard of the spoilers and might create bending moments
> >that would break the spar - especially above Vne.
>
> Never.
> As long as you don't pull really high g-loads (as it was the case in
> that Nimbus 4 crash), this is not going to happen.
>
> > It's always a good
> >idea to be familiar with this part of the operating manual for the
> >specific sailplane type you're flying as you won't habe time to look
> >it up when you need to know. In any event it would be a wild ride.
>
> This is why I asked - so far I haven't met a glider yet whose POH
> didn't allow airbrake extension up to Vne.
>
> Bye
> Andreas

Sorry for the confustion Andreas - that's what I meant. If you are
over Vne (or at any speed really) you will need to pull some G's to
get then nose up and he airspeed down. But the bending moment for any
given G-load is higher with the spoilers deployed because only the
outer 2/3 of the wing is lifting. This is why you have different G-
limits with the spoilers out, as I recall. I will need to get my POH
out this winter and read it again. I think you are right that you can
deploy the spoilers up to redline for most gliders, but I think there
are warnings in my POH about what a violent a maneuver it can be. I'll
have to check.

I think there was a thread on the topic of the Minden Nimbus 4 crash a
while ago and in it there was discussion as to whether under certian
conditions (like a steep spiral dive) you are better off pulling the
spoilers first or using the bigger G-envelope with the spoilers closed
to get the nose up first. I don't think there was a final resolution.

9B

[[email protected]]

On Jan 9, 2:28*pm, wrote:
> On Jan 9, 12:52*pm, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 10:07*pm, wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 8, 8:29*pm, wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 8, 6:09*pm, Tony Verhulst > wrote:
>
> > > > > > If you need to go into controlled airspace without permission
>
> > > > > [CFI mode]
> > > > > I fly in controlled airspace all the time and rarely get permission.

[Eric Greenwell]

Andreas Maurer wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 11:59:29 -0800 (PST), wrote:

> This is why I asked - so far I haven't met a glider yet whose POH
> didn't allow airbrake extension up to Vne.

Dave was well above Vne, so slowing down to Vne before opening the
spoilers might be a very good idea.

--
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

[Soarin Again]

>IN A SPARROWHAWK. Those things weigh like 145 pounds
>empty not exactly the aircraft I want to use for testing
>aeroelastic theory. He has his transponder on so ATC
>sees him. He is monitoring Reno Approach so he would
>be aware of traffic reporting in an area of concern
>to him.

In a previous post the orginal poster commented that
the FAA regards his glider as an ultralight. Could
someone please clarify if Daves Sparrowhawk is
operated as an ultralight or a certificated aircraft?

[Ian Strachan]

On Dec 31 2007, 6:03 am, "
> wrote:

> VNE at various altitudes

I have looked at a number of posts on this thread. May I attempt a
sort of summary?

At 40,000 ft, the ratio of True Airspeed to Indicated Airspeed is
approximately two (using the
ICAO ISA). This is why an airliner can fly at, say, 200 knots "on the
clock" and yet travel over
the ground at 400 knots. Since drag and therefore fuel consumption is
approximately
proportional to IAS, this is great for jet airliners. However, it's
less great for gliders.

Looking at flutter and stability, aerodynamic stability is
approximately proportional to IAS
whereas inertia is approximately proportional to TAS. Aerodynamic
stability provides restoring
moment(s) after a disturbance, that is what things like dihedral and
the vertical and horizontal tail
surfaces are for. Also, movements like pitch and roll produce changes
of angle of attack that in
themselves are (slightly) stabilising. The overall effect should be
that the aircraft is stable to
disturbances such as due to turbulence. The other side of the coin is
that "Inertia" implies that
any divergence will tend to continue, and needs to be damped out by
restoring moments before
an unstable situation develops such as what is commonly called
"flutter" that has claimed the lives
of several pilots over the years. So Vne in terms of IAS is clearly
not constant with altitude, if
divergent flutter is to be avoided. The only question is, by how much
it should reduce?

In many gliders, the protocol for Vne with altitude is one which I
understand was originally
formulated by the German certification authority, the Luftfahrt
BundesAmpt (LBA). It is also
used in JAR 22, the European airworthiness requirement for gliders
(now operated under the new
European Airworthiness and Safety Authority, EASA).

The protocol says: "For gliders, Vne IAS is assumed to be constant
from Sea Level to altitude
2000m, then decreases with altitude at constant TAS".

The idea was that this was a reasonable assumption, maybe a bit on the
cautious side, that could
be accepted by the LBA and JAR22 in the absence of real flutter
testing at high altitudes. If you
look at your flight manual (if you fly an European-produced glider),
you may well find that the
Vne table with altitude uses this protocol. Mine certainly does.

In numerical terms, to take an easy figure, if your glider Vne was 100
knots at sea level (where
IAS and TAS are the same), it would still be 100 kt IAS at 6562 ft
(2000m). Using the ICAO
ISA, IAS then reduces at altitude such that at:
10,000 ft it is 94.8, then:
15kft = 87.5
20kft = 80.5
25kft = 73.8
30kft = 67.5
35kft = 61.4
40kft = 54.7

For a real glider, multiply these figures by the ratio of your Sea
Level Vne to 100 knots. If 130
knots at SL, assuming above protocol, at 20kft the Vne IAS will be
104.7knots. I have a MS
Excel spreadsheet that does this, you enter your glider's Sea Level
Vne and the table with altitude
is shown (if you want a copy, email me).

However, the "official position" is that you must still use what it
says in your own glider's
Flight Manual, in case it is different to the above.

The manuals for older gliders may not allow for this reduction in Vne
IAS with altitude, and
advice should then be sought. In the USA I guess that this would be
from the SSA and/or the
FAA, in the UK is would be the BGA because we have delegated technical
powers from our CAA
and the matter would be dealt with in the first instance by the BGA
Technical Committee.

Background to Flutter Testing.

Unlike expensive powered aircraft, glider testing does not include
real flutter testing at altitude.
In powered aircraft, vibration is provoked in flutter testing by small
"bangers" or "kickers" that
artificially produce motion in wings, tail surfaces and so forth, so
that damped motion can be
proved from the sensors in the test aircraft. In my earlier
incarnation as a military test pilot, I have
been involved in high level flutter testing for a number of
aircraft.

This is not done in gliders for obvious reasons of cost and the
difficulty of taking prototype gliders
up to altitude with the correct "kickers" and instrumentation
sensors. Therefore, the above
protocol was produced.

I am sorry that this post is long. But it may review some of the
ground ...

Ian Strachan
Lasham Gliding Centre, UK

[Andreas Maurer]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 02:36:00 -0800 (PST), Ian Strachan
> wrote:

> However, it's
>less great for gliders.

I'm not sure that Klaus Ohlmann would agree... ;)



>I am sorry that this post is long. But it may review some of the
>ground ...

Great posting!


Bye
Andreas

[Philip Plane]

Martin Gregorie wrote:

>> I noticed the same thing in a Libelle 201 when I tried using the brakes
>> at high speed.
>>
> Out of curiosity, do you remember the speed at which you tried that?
>
> The fastest I've opened them to date was 70 kts. Mine's a 201 (not B
> series). They opened as easily as usual (mine has a pretty fierce over
> center even when stationary) but the deceleration was immediately
> noticeable - I thought that wasn't bad at all for a glider thats famous
> for having weak brakes!

I tried at 80 and 100 knots. 80 was OK, but 100 was stiff enough to
require a serious pull that made it difficult to not snatch the brakes
open. I didn't try any faster.

On the opposite side, I like Duo Discus brakes. They can be operated
at high speed with a little care.

--
Philip Plane _____
|
---------------( )---------------
Glider pilots have no visible means of support

[[email protected]]

On Jan 9, 11:51 pm, Soarin Again
> wrote:
> >IN A SPARROWHAWK. Those things weigh like 145 pounds
> >empty not exactly the aircraft I want to use for testing
> >aeroelastic theory. He has his transponder on so ATC
> >sees him. He is monitoring Reno Approach so he would
> >be aware of traffic reporting in an area of concern
> >to him.
>
> In a previous post the orginal poster commented that
> the FAA regards his glider as an ultralight. Could
> someone please clarify if Daves Sparrowhawk is
> operated as an ultralight or a certificated aircraft?

The SparrowHawk may be either operated as an ultralight vehicle or
an experimental aircraft - choice of owner. There are advantages and
disadvantages in either category. I operate my SparrowHawk as an
ultralight but have it equipped probably better than many gliders with
EDS O2, a transponder and a ballistic parachute. Since I still belong
to USHPA (US Hang Gliding Paragliding Association) I am covered for
$1,000,000 liability insurance for only $60. Also because there is no
N number the SparrowHawk falls into the same category as hang gliders/
paragliders and there are no local property taxes to be paid. Since I
have 10 years of sailplane experience and most operators know me in
this part of the world I have no problems getting a tow from the local
FBOs. For me the obvious choice was ultralight category. For others
there may be good reasons for experimental category. These may include
getting hull insurance and the requirement from the FBO have a
registered aircraft if you want a tow.
Because the FAA never envisioned a SparrowHawk when Part 103 was
generated there are almost no operating restrictions on an unpowered
ultralights - no pilot license, no air worthiness certificate, no
pilot flying experience, no stall speed requirements, no maximum speed
restrictions, no O2 requirements and the list goes on. The only
restrictions are weight (155lbs without installed safety equipment),
one person, no flying over populous areas and keeping out of ATC
controlled airspace (A, B,C and D) except with permission. I still
have yet to land the SparrowHawk at Reid Hillview Airport (D airspace)
in San Jose, CA which is a very busy towered GA airport, but they are
quite comfortable with me landing the Stemme as a glider that I am
sure after a couple of questions and clarifications I would be given
permission.
Dave

[Mark Dickson]

Dave,

The chance of your airspace infringement causing a
midair or even an airprox is virtually nil; the base
levels of airways are generally not used (at least
in the UK) and airways aren't the busy highways we
are led to believe, but the main reason a midair would
not have occurred is because you were transponder equipped.

If the controllers were working traffic at your level,
in your vicinity, they would have noticed your squark.
If they didn't, and you were going to cause a loss
of separation (1000' or 5nm), then a conflict warning
would have been triggered . If this visual warning
failed to attract the controllers attention then TCAS
(which virtually all airways traffic is equipped with)
would have provided the other pilot with advice on
collision avoidance.

Calling prior to entering CAS was obviously not possible
and I don't think there was any need to make a call
until everything was back under control and you were
outside CAS. As you had exceeded VNE your climb was
essential and could probably be considered an emergency;
therefore it may have been appropriate to select 7700
on your transponder as you climbed. This would have
definately alerted ATC to your presence, although you
would have needed to call ASAP to let them know everything
was ok and explain your predicament.

[Martin Gregorie[_1_]]

Philip Plane wrote:
> Martin Gregorie wrote:
>
>>> I noticed the same thing in a Libelle 201 when I tried using the brakes
>>> at high speed.
>>>
>> Out of curiosity, do you remember the speed at which you tried that?
>>
>> The fastest I've opened them to date was 70 kts. Mine's a 201 (not B
>> series). They opened as easily as usual (mine has a pretty fierce over
>> center even when stationary) but the deceleration was immediately
>> noticeable - I thought that wasn't bad at all for a glider thats famous
>> for having weak brakes!
>
> I tried at 80 and 100 knots. 80 was OK, but 100 was stiff enough to
> require a serious pull that made it difficult to not snatch the brakes
> open. I didn't try any faster.
>
Thanks for the information.


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

[[email protected]]

Hi:

Jumping into the fray here (both feet!) with some ASRS reports about
NMACs at altitude.

ACN: 751929
Date : 200708
(B737-300 at 14000 MSL near Reno, NV)
Synopsis: B737 FLT CREW RPTS TCAS RA WITH GLIDER AT 14000 FT 25 NM SW
OF RNO.
Narrative: 14000 FT SW OF RNO, APCH ADVISED TFC WITH XPONDER AT OR
NEAR OUR ALT. THE TFC QUICKLY BECAME A TA AND THEN AN RA. I FOLLOWED
CONFLICT GUIDANCE WITH A DSCNT AND THEN THE RA QUICKLY COMMANDED A
'CLB, CLB NOW.' I QUICKLY START CLBING WITH MAX POWER AND THEN DECIDED
TO TURN OFF COURSE TO THE WEST. A GLIDER PASSED OFF OUR R/EAST SIDE
APPROX 200 FT COMING HEAD ON. THE TA/RA ISSUES WERE THE GLIDER WAS
CLBING AND DSNDING WHICH CAUSED THE TA/RA TO REVERSE ITS CONFLICT CALL
FROM DSND TO CLB. APCH IN RNO IS VERY UPSET WITH THESE GLIDERS AND WE
NEED SOME RESTRS ON THEIR AIRSPACE TO AVOID THIS CONFLICT. THESE
MANEUVERS WERE AGGRESSIVE AND I PERSONALLY FEEL IF THEY HAD NOT BEEN
FOLLOWED, A WORSE SITUATION WOULD HAVE OCCURRED. GLIDER RESTRS.

ACN: 739528
Date : 200705
(Citation II flying at 12000 MSL)
Synopsis: C550 FLT CREW TOOK EVASIVE ACTION TO AVOID GLIDER ACTIVITY.
Narrative: WE WERE ON THE ZZZZZ ARR INTO ZZZ, DSNDING TO 12000 FT TO
MEET THE XING RESTR, WHEN THE CTLR TOLD US TO DSND TO 11000 FT FOR
TFC. WE SAW A TARGET AT 500 FT ABOVE ON THE TCAS (JUST APPEARED) AND
AS WE INCREASED OUR RATE OF DSCNT WE GOT A TFC ALERT AND THE TARGET
TURNED TO ORANGE ON THE TCAS. WE SAW A GLIDER AND RPTED IT TO ATC (WE
PREVIOUSLY HEARD HIM ALERT ANOTHER ACFT OF AN UNIDENTED TARGET IN THE
AREA, POSSIBLY A GLIDER) AS THE GLIDER PASSED SLIGHTLY TO OUR 1
O'CLOCK POS, ANOTHER GLIDER APPEARED DIRECTLY AT 12 O'CLOCK POS, THE
PF BANKED STEEPLY TO THE R AND DSNDED FURTHER TO AVOID THE GLIDER.
LOOKING TO MY L I SAW A FLASH OF PARTIAL GLIDER PASS ABOVE US (WE WERE
CLOSE ENOUGH THAT THE COMPLETE WING SPAN WAS NOT VISIBLE). I ADVISED
THE CTLR WE WERE DIVERTING FOR ANOTHER GLIDER AND WE WENT BELOW OUR
ASSIGNED ALT BY OVER 400 FT WHILE RECOVERING. BOTH GLIDERS WERE FLYING
JUST ABOVE THE RIDGE, A GREAT PLACE TO SOAR, BUT PRECISELY ON THE ARR
PATH AND ALT. ONLY 1 TA WAS VISIBLE ON THE TCAS. THIS WAS A GREAT CALL
FROM THE CTLR, AS XMISSIONS WERE THE USUAL BUSY ZZZ ARR ON A FRIDAY
EVENING. AFTER A MOMENT OF SILENCE, I ADVISED THE CTLR AGAIN THAT
THERE WERE 2 GLIDERS ON THE ARR ABOVE THE RIDGE. I WILL ATTEMPT TODAY
TO CALL THE TRACON TO DISCUSS THE ALT DEV AND THANK THE CTLR FOR HIS
VIGILANCE.

ACN: 736824
Date : 200704
A320 at 11000 MSL
Synopsis: A320 CAPTAIN EXPERIENCES NMAC WITH GLIDER WHILE IN DESCENT
TO LAS.
Narrative: NEAR MISS WITH GLIDER FLYING N TO S ALONG RIDGE LINE.
CLOSEST POINT OF INTERCEPT: APPROX 200 FT. NO EVASIVE ACTION TAKEN
BASED ON GEOMETRY. WE TOLD CTLR AND SHE INFORMED THE NEXT ARR ACFT
BEHIND US OF A POSSIBLE 'PRIMARY' TARGET. I SPOKE WITH TRACON AND THEY
SAID THEY FREQUENTLY FLY THE RIDGE AND ARE HARD TO DETECT ON RADAR. HE
ALSO MENTIONED THAT GLIDERS CAN STILL FLY IN CLASS C WITHOUT MODE C.

ACN: 716529
Date : 200611
B737-700 at 6000MSL near Panoche
Synopsis: B737-700 FLT CREW HAS A TCAS RA DURING PANOCHE TWO ARR TO
OAK.
ACFT WAS ON PANOCHE ARR INTO OAK IN VMC CONDITIONS. WE WERE VECTORED
10 DEGS R OF COURSE FOR GA ACFT SEPARATION. WE WERE LEVEL AT 6000 FT
AND INSTRUCTED TO DSND TO 5000 FT TO CLR TFC. I SAW TFC MANEUVERING AT
OUR 11 O'CLOCK POS AND WAS TOLD BY ATC THAT IT WAS A MOONEY ABOVE US.
HOWEVER, IT TURNED OUT TO BE A GLIDER BELOW US IN A R BANK TURNING
DIRECTLY TOWARDS US. THE GLIDER CONTINUED TO TURN AND CLB TOWARDS US.
I ADDED PWR AND STARTED A CLB AND TURNED AWAY FROM THE TFC. THE FO
NOTIFIED ATC OF OUR AVOIDANCE MANEUVER JUST AS THE TCAS RA SOUNDED A
FEW SECONDS AFTER ADDING PWR. IT INDICATED A 2000 FPM CLB IN ORDER TO
CLR THE TFC, AND WE CLBED IMMEDIATELY TO 7000 FT. THE CTLR SEEMED
CONFUSED TO WHY WE WERE CLBING WHEN WE WERE GIVEN A DSCNT CLRNC. THE
CTLR DID NOT KNOW THERE WAS A GLIDER IN THE AREA AND HAD NO CONTACT
WITH THE GLIDER. ATC INSTRUCTED US TO DSND WHEN ABLE. VFR TFC SHOULD
AVOID MANEUVERING OVER ARR RTES WITHOUT COMMUNICATING TO ATC.

ACN: 708924
Date : 200608
Citation V at 16000 MSL
Synopsis: A C560 CLBING OUT OF BJC EXPERIENCED A NEAR MISS WITH A
SAILPLANE AT 16000 FT.

WHILE BEING VECTORED AROUND A SLOWER ACFT ON THE ROCK14.EKR DEP FROM
THE BOULDER JEFFERSON COUNTY ARPT, WE EXPERIENCED A NEAR MISS WITH A
SAILPLANE. WE WERE ASSIGNED ON A 240 DEG HDG, CLRED TO FL230 FROM
DENVER DEP CTL ON THE 126.1 MHZ FREQ, AND CLBING AT 280 KTS CAS AT
2000 FPM. AT EXACTLY 16000 FT MSL, WE WERE STARTLED BY THE SIGHTING OF
THE GLIDER AT ABOUT OUR 1 O'CLOCK POSITION AND A QUARTER MILE DISTANT.
THE GLIDER WAS FLYING AT APPROX THE SAME HDG IN STRAIGHT AND LEVEL FLT
SO HE WAS UNAWARE OF US AT THAT MOMENT. I MADE NO EVASIVE MANEUVER AND
THE GLIDER PASSED OUR STARBOARD WING ABOUT TWO SECONDS LATER. MY GUESS
IS THAT THE GLIDER WAS ABOUT A FOOTBALL FIELD LENGTH HORIZONTALLY AWAY
-- CLOSE ENOUGH TO SEE THE PLT CLEARLY. I CAN ONLY GUESS THAT THE PLT
OF THIS GLIDER WAS EQUALLY STARTLED BY THE SIGHT AND SOUND OF OUR
PASSING CLOSELY AT A HIGH RATE OF SPD AND THRUST. WE MENTIONED THE
NEAR MISS SITUATION TO DEP CTL AND HE RESPONDED TO US THAT HE HAD NO
RADAR OR RADIO CONTACT WITH THE GLIDER. GLIDER ACFT, OUTSIDE OF CLASS
A, B, AND C AIRSPACE, ARE EXEMPT FROM XPONDER/ALT REPORTING EQUIP
UNDER FAR 91.215(b)(5). A WEEK AGO A HAWKER HS-125 JET COLLIDED WITH A
GLIDER NEAR MEV IN A SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCE WITH NO CASUALTIES EXCEPT
FOR THE TOTAL DESTRUCTION OF THE SAILPLANE AND SERIOUS DAMAGE TO THE
JET. I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE PRUDENT FOR SAILPLANE PLTS TO CARRY A
HANDHELD TRANSCEIVER AND POSSIBLY A MODE 3/A OR C XPONDER TO
COMMUNICATE WITH ATC FOR SAFETY AND SURVIVAL REASONS. CARRYING ABOARD
PORTABLE SYSTEMS WOULD NOT BE DIFFICULT. SIZE, COST, AND WT WOULD POSE
VERY LITTLE PROBLEM. THIS INCIDENT IMPRESSED ON ME AND MY FO OF THE
IMPORTANCE OF 'SEE-AND AVOID' ON AN IFR CLRNC IN VMC. IN SPECULATION,
IF THE GLIDER HAD BEEN DIRECTLY IN OUR PATH, I'M CONFIDENT THAT WE
COULD HAVE EVADED A COLLISION AT THE INITIAL SIGHTING WITH A QUARTER
MILE SEPARATION. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY CLOSE REQUIRING AN ABRUPT
PULL-UP MANEUVER. IF WE HAD NOT BEEN WATCHING, IN THIS SAME SCENARIO,
I HAVE NIGHTMARES CONTEMPLATING THE RESULT.

ACN: 679562
Date : 200512
Synopsis: A B737-300 PLT RPTS AN NMAC WITH A GLIDER AT 13000 FT APPROX
30 DME S ON APCH TO RNO RWY 34.
Narrative: WHILE DSNDING ON TARVR 1 ARR INTO RNO, APCH CTLR CALLED
POSSIBLE GLIDER TFC AT OUR 12-1 O'CLOCK POS, APPROX 5 MI, ALT UNKNOWN.
WE ENTERED A CLOUD CONTINUING OUR IFR DSCNT. UPON EXITING THE CLOUD AT
APPROX 13000 FT MSL AND 30 DME FROM RNO, ON THE TARVR 1 ARR BTWN THE
FIXES TARVR AND SPOON, THE CAPT SPOTTED THE GLIDER AT CLOSE RANGE ON
THE APPROX SAME HDG AND ALT. THE CAPT TOOK CTL OF THE ACFT. THE CAPT
TOOK EVASIVE MANEUVERS TO AVOID THE GLIDER. THE CLOSEST POINT OF APCH
WAS APPROX 200 FT. WE INFORMED THE CTLR OF THE NMAC AND CONTINUED
UNEVENTFULLY INTO RENO. I BELIEVE THE GLIDER HAD NO SITUATIONAL
AWARENESS AS TO HIS LOCATION ALONG THE ARR INTO RENO. PERHAPS THE
GLIDER PLTS NEED SOME WAY OF BEING INFORMED WHEN RENO IS CONDUCTING N
ARRS.

ACN: 656782
Date : 200505
Synopsis: B737 FLT CREW WITH ZAU AT 7000 FT EXPERIENCED NMAC WITH
UNRPTED SAILPLANE DURING ARR TO MDW.
Narrative: I WAS ON THE MOTIF ARR TO MDW TALKING TO ZAU. I CANNOT
RECALL THE FREQ, BUT THE LAST ONE BEFORE HDOF TO APCH. WE WERE
ORIGINALLY CLRED TO CROSS 5 MI S OF JOT AT 6000 FT AND WERE THEN CLRED
TO CROSS 10 MI S OF JOT AT 7000 FT, WHICH WE COMPLIED. FLT CONDITIONS
WERE CLR OF CLOUDS AND HAZY WITH FLT VISIBILITY AROUND 5 MI. WE WERE
LEVEL AT 7000 FT INDICATING 250 KTS WITH THE FO FLYING. I WAS DOING MY
NORMAL SCAN FOR TFC WHEN JUST AHEAD, APPROX 11 O'CLOCK POS, A
SAILPLANE APPEARED STRAIGHT-ON IN A STEEP R BANK. IT WENT PAST MY SIDE
WINDOW STILL IN THE BANK, BUT VERY CLOSE, MAYBE 200 FT LEFT AND LESS
THAN 50 FT ABOVE. THIS ALL HAPPENED IN AN INSTANT, BUT I ACTUALLY SAW
THE PLT IN HIS SEAT. THE SAILPLANE WAS A T-TAIL SINGLE SEAT VERSION.
MY FO ALSO SAW THE ACFT FOR AN INSTANT AFTER HE MUST HAVE HEARD ME SAY
AN '&^%$#.' THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO TIME FOR AN EVASIVE MANEUVER. THE
ACFT APPEARED OUT OF NOWHERE AND ITS CROSS SECTION STRAIGHT-ON IN HAZY
CONDITIONS MADE IT NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE. I CALLED THE CTR AND SAID
I HAD A CLOSE CALL WITH A SAILPLANE AND WAS ASKED HOW CLOSE. I SAID
LESS THAN 500 FT, AND HE ACKNOWLEDGED SAYING THAT NO ACFT WAS BEING
PAINTED NEAR ME. I WAS THEN HANDED OVER TO CHICAGO APCH CTL AND ALSO
TOLD HIM ABOUT THE SAILPLANE ACTIVITY ON THE ARR, AND HE SAID HE WAS
GETTING A HIT EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE IN THAT AREA. I BELIEVE THAT IF WE
WERE 100 FT LEFT AND A FEW FT HIGHER, A COLLISION WOULD HAVE OCCURRED.
AS A CREW, WE WERE ACTIVELY SCANNING AND PREPARING FOR 'NORMAL'
VECTORS TO THE APCH. I SAW NO FAULT IN ATC WHATSOEVER. I WOULD LIKE TO
KNOW WHY SAILPLANES ARE ALLOWED TO FLY ON A KNOWN ARR RTE TO ONE OF
THE BUSIEST AIRSPACES IN THE COUNTRY, ESPECIALLY WITHOUT A XPONDER. I
HAVE WRACKED MY BRAIN TRYING TO THINK OF WHAT I COULD HAVE DONE
DIFFERENTLY, BUT FIND NOTHING. WE WERE A STERILE COCKPIT WITH ALL ACFT
LIGHTS. I JUST DID NOT SEE THE ACFT COMING, AND ANY REACTION WOULD
HAVE BEEN TOO LATE. THE GLIDERS HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO BE FLYING, BUT
MAYBE A CHANGE IN THE ARR RTE AWAY FROM GLIDER FIELDS OR AN ALT CAP
FOR THEM IN THAT AREA SHOULD BE LOOKED AT. ALSO, TRAINING TO THE
GLIDER PLTS IN THE AREA OUGHT TO BE GIVEN, OUTLINING THE HIGH DENSITY
ARR RTES TO THE CHICAGO AREA. IT WAS A CHILLING EVENT TO MY FO AND ME.
IT WAS A VERY CLOSE CALL.

ACN: 621472
Date : 200406
Synopsis: S56 CTLR RPTED NMAC BTWN B737 ARR TO SLC AND GLIDER AT 11000
FT.
Narrative: I WAS WORKING THE JORDAN RADAR SECTOR (SALT LAKE CITY
TRACON) AND HAD CLRED ACFT X FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 34R. AT 11000 FT
HE RPTED TAKING EVASIVE ACTION TO MISS A GLIDER AND RPTED AN NMAC. I
NEVER OBSERVED ANY TFC IN HIS VICINITY. THE AREA IS APPROX 8 MI FROM A
KNOWN GLIDER AREA, WHERE THERE IS A 'GLIDER BOX' FOR GLIDERS TO CLB/
DSND THROUGH CLASS B AIRSPACE.

ACN: 620997
Date : 200406
Synopsis: NMAC BTWN AN ARR B737-300 AND A GLIDER ON THE EXTENDED
CTRLINE OF LOC RWY 34R AT 11000 FT, 3 NM N OF FFU VORTAC, UT.
Narrative: WHILE DSNDING INTO SLC, JUST N OF FFU VOR, WE HAD JUST
LEVELED AT 11000 FT AT 230 KTS FOR LIGHT TURB. WE WERE THEN CLRED FOR
THE VISUAL APCH TO RWY 34R. I LOOKED AT MY APCH PLATE AND THEN THE FMC/
CDU LEGS PAGE TO CONFIRM OUR NEXT ALT UNTIL PLAGE. MY FO STATED,
'CAPT, WE'VE GOT A GLIDER AT 12 O'CLOCK POS. WE NEED TO TURN R NOW AND
DSND.' I DISCONNECTED THE AUTOPLT AND APPLIED R AILERON AND NOSE DOWN
CTL INPUTS WHILE LOOKING FOR THE TFC. I SPOTTED THE SAIL PLANE AT OUR
ALT, JUST L OF OUR NOSE, WITH NO RELATIVE MOTION IN MY WINDSCREEN,
COMING NOSE ON. AS I ROLLED R AND DSNDED, THE SAIL PLANE PLT BANKED TO
HIS L, TURNING DIRECTLY INTO OUR PATH. I INCREASED BANK ANGLE TO
APPROX 40 DEGS AND NOSE DOWN PITCH TO APPROX 10-12 DEGS AND IGNORED
THE AUDIBLE, 'BANK ANGLE' WARNINGS. AS THE SAIL PLANE PASSED DOWN THE
L SIDE OF OUR ACFT, MISSING US BY APPROX 150 FT HORIZLY AND 30 FT
VERTLY, I SAW THE PLT REVERSE HIS ROLL TO R BANK. WE LEVELED AT 9500
FT, RPTED THE NMAC TO APCH CTL FOR THE BENEFIT OF FOLLOWING ACR ACFT,
AND COMPLETED THE APCH TO AND LNDG ON RWY 34R WITHOUT FURTHER
INCIDENT. I HAD ALREADY SEATED THE FLT ATTENDANTS PRIOR TO THE
INCIDENT, AND AFTER LNDG, THEY RPTED THAT NO PAX WERE INJURED OR
OVERLY ALARMED. I THEN CALLED APCH CTL, DISPATCH, THE CHIEF PLT ON
CALL, AND COMPLETED THE REQUIRED RPTS.

ACN: 619666
Date : 200405
Synopsis: B767 FLT CREW EXPERIENCED NMAC WITH GLIDER AT 7000 FT NEAR
CRANK INTXN DURING ARR TO EWR.
Narrative: ON ARR TO EWR, WE CROSSED CRANK INTXN AT 7000 FT AS IS
USUAL ON THIS ARR. I CONTACTED NY APCH. I LOOKED OUT OF MY WINDOW AND
SAW A GLIDER AT OUR ALT, IN A L TURN AT MY 2 O'CLOCK POS. IT CONTINUED
ITS TURN AND ENDED UP COMING TOWARDS US, THEN BANKED STEEPLY AWAY FROM
US. THE 2 ACFT CAME WITHIN 200-250 FT OF EACH OTHER. I QUERIED NY APCH
ABOUT A GLIDER. HE SAID HE DID NOT SHOW ANYTHING. ABOUT 20 SECONDS
LATER, THE CTLR INFORMED ME HE HAD 2 PRIMARY RETURNS. HE ASKED ME HOW
CLOSE WE CAME TO EACH OTHER. I INFORMED HIM OF MY OPINION, AND HE
CONCURRED WITH MY OPINION AND A FLT BEHIND US ON THE ARR CONFIRMED
THAT THE GLIDERS WERE STILL AT 7000 FT. WE DID NOT TAKE EVASIVE
ACTION. BY THE TIME I POINTED OUT TFC TO MY CAPT, THERE WAS NO POINT
IN MAKING EXCESSIVE MANEUVERS.

These came from the first 50 hits from a search on "glider" on the
ASRS database.

-Teresa

[Soarin Again]

> The SparrowHawk may be either operated as an ultralight
>vehicle or
>an experimental aircraft - choice of owner. There are
>advantages and
>disadvantages in either category. I operate my SparrowHawk
>as an
>ultralight but have it equipped probably better than
>many gliders with
>EDS O2, a transponder and a ballistic parachute. Since
>I still belong
>to USHPA (US Hang Gliding Paragliding Association)
>I am covered for
>$1,000,000 liability insurance for only $60. Also because
>there is no
>N number the SparrowHawk falls into the same category
>as hang gliders/
>paragliders and there are no local property taxes to
>be paid. Since I
>have 10 years of sailplane experience and most operators
>know me in
>this part of the world I have no problems getting a
>tow from the local
>FBOs. For me the obvious choice was ultralight category.
>For others
>there may be good reasons for experimental category.
>These may include
>getting hull insurance and the requirement from the
>FBO have a
>registered aircraft if you want a tow.
> Because the FAA never envisioned a SparrowHawk when
>Part 103 was
>generated there are almost no operating restrictions
>on an unpowered
>ultralights - no pilot license, no air worthiness certificate,
>no
>pilot flying experience, no stall speed requirements,
>no maximum speed
>restrictions, no O2 requirements and the list goes
>on. The only
>restrictions are weight (155lbs without installed safety
>equipment),
>one person, no flying over populous areas and keeping
>out of ATC
>controlled airspace (A, B,C and D) except with permission.
>I still
>have yet to land the SparrowHawk at Reid Hillview Airport
>(D airspace)
>in San Jose, CA which is a very busy towered GA airport,
>but they are
>quite comfortable with me landing the Stemme as a glider
>that I am
>sure after a couple of questions and clarifications
>I would be given
>permission.
>Dave

I went to the Sparrowhawk web page where it
shows the empty weight as 155 lbs. Are you saying
that with a transponder, radio, batteries and oxygen
system installed the Sparrowhawk still weighs only
155 lbs?

[[email protected]]

On Jan 9, 6:31*pm, wrote:
> On Jan 9, 2:28*pm, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 9, 12:52*pm, wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 8, 10:07*pm, wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 8, 8:29*pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 8, 6:09*pm, Tony Verhulst > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > If you need to go into controlled airspace without permission
>
> > > > > > [CFI mode]
> > > > > > I fly in controlled airspace all the time and rarely get permission.
> > > > > > Controlled airspace does not mean that you have to talk to a controller.
> > > > > > Class E airspace is controlled airspace and is the such best example.
> > > > > > The only uncontrolled airspace (in the U.S.) is class G airspace..
>
> > > > > > Wikipedia, though never authoritative, provides this (accurate)
> > > > > > description -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_airspace.
>
> > > > > > [/CFI mode]
>
> > > > > > Tony V. CFI-G
>
> > > > > Tony,
>
> > > > > Thanks for the clarification. Clearly, I ment CLASS A controlled
> > > > > airspace, vs controlled airspace. Of course, this changes absolutely
> > > > > everything!
>
> > > > > Tom
>
> > > > Waiter, some Lithium for my friend Tom.
>
> > > > Remember the original scenario. Dave finds himself at 18,200' at some
> > > > scary number of knots over Vne - IN A SPARROWHAWK. Those things weigh
> > > > like 145 pounds empty - not exactly the aircraft I want to use for
> > > > testing aeroelastic theory. He has his transponder on so ATC sees him.
> > > > He is monitoring Reno Approach so he would be aware of traffic
> > > > reporting in an area of concern to him.
>
> > > > So if I am Dave in that situation I'm first of all trying to not poop
> > > > in my pants. Second, I am trying to get the airspeed down quickly but
> > > > without overstresing the airplane or changing the loading in a way
> > > > that sets off flutter (a big unknown on what to do there, so more
> > > > pucker in the old sphincter). Third, I am getting the boards out as
> > > > soon as I feel safe to do so and pushing back over for the quickest
> > > > decent I can safely manage. The whole operation is maybe 45 seconds of
> > > > pure adrenaline.
>
> > > > So somewhere in here Dave gets to stop thinking aviate and start
> > > > thinking navigate. The stop at navigate is short (Dave knows where he
> > > > is). So now he can move on to communicate. So the relevant question
> > > > is, where does Dave make the transition from aviate through navigate
> > > > up to communicate? All while still holding his bowels. Is it the
> > > > instant he gets below Vne? While he's still maybe 30 degrees nose up
> > > > and losing airspeed? Before the zero-G push over, popping the
> > > > divebreaks for the 45-degree decent to 18,000' and below? Is is during
> > > > the decent? Is it before the pullup? Or does Dave just push forward on
> > > > the stick to get immediately back below below 18k, poop his pants, and
> > > > wait for permission to save his own life (that is, should he jump
> > > > straight to communicate - probably in falsetto).
>
> > > > One could also make the argument that Dave pull up, get down to a
> > > > reasonable speed, pause at 19k, call ATC and have a conversation about
> > > > what to do before going back into aviate mode for a more sedate decent
> > > > where multitasking is again fully operating for him. That might be a
> > > > reasonable course of action, but he will be spending a lot more time
> > > > in the Class A and there is probably a question about how long it
> > > > takes ATC to sort him out. If he didn't have his transponder on it
> > > > might take some time to sort out exactly where he is relative to other
> > > > traffic, whether or not he can maintain a constant altitude and
> > > > bearing given all the wave up/down, etc. If he didn't have his radio
> > > > on ATC then he'd have to locate the freq (if not committed to memory),
> > > > dial it up and establish contact all while farting around at 19k.
>
> > > > If he's got nerves of steel and the multitasking ability of a figher
> > > > jock making a radio call that's more informative than Tom's self-
> > > > described, micro-burst, "I'm busy" would be in order right in the
> > > > middle of the highest workload part, but I for one would give him
> > > > credit for landing with clean trousers.
>
> > > > Thanks for sharing with us Dave.
>
> > > > 9B- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Ok, very funny - you are obviously not trying to make a serious post
> > > here and you should be ignored. Fine, you get your wish. Hopefully no
> > > one else takes anything you say seriously as there are consequences,
> > > some extreme.
>
> > > Tom- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text
>
> > Tom,
>
> > There's are several serious points in there - may be too subtle for a
> > guy who is sometimes right but never uncertain.
>
> > Honestly, I thought it was pretty arrogant of you to assert so
> > stridently what the situation was in the cockpit for Dave and what he
> > should or shouldn't have done with respect to flying the airplane
> > versus using the radio. I also thought your choice of adjectives
> > ("neglegent" for instance) was particularly offensive. Finally, you
> > style of argument where you distort what others say, take ideas out of
> > context and personally attack anyone who you think might disagree with
> > you is reminiscent of a precocious 12 year old boy with poor impulse
> > control.
>
> > I also think your advice, and particularly the style in which you give
> > it doesn't advance the cause of safety.When people see the world in
> > such sharp contrast and adhere to fixed procedures or slogans at the
> > expense of thinking and adapting the the situation - that's when
> > extremely bad things happen.
>
> > At least one purpose of this forum is to share the types of incidents
> > that Dave experienced so we can all think about them, discuss them and
> > learn. The "you're all knuckleheads let me tell what the only right
> > answer is" doesn't encourage an open exchange at all.
>
> > I thought a little humor might allow you to open up your thinking and
> > see things from a different perspective - my mistake.
>
> > - Andy- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Oh Puhleese, Andy. You call me strident after calling me names. So-
> called "humor' generally comes at the expense of someone else.
>
> IMO Dave could have made a radio transmission while flying straight
> and level. By his own statement he didn't because he "didn't want to
> bother them", not "I was scared ****less". I assume he can do that
> while flying the pattern, most pilots can. That was my one - and only
> - (initial) contribution to what he could have done differently.
>
> I feel your real objection to my suggestion is your complete aversion
> to talking to anyone associated with the FAA. Many glider pilots share
> this reluctance, probably because they trained on uncontrolled
> airports and never learned the lingo. Some even got the licenses in
> gliders w/o radios. The FAA does have a publication on this subject
> and is worthwhile reading for any pilot.
>
> Radio communication is one of the cheapest and most effective safety
> devices that we have. Period. I once complained (to the FAA) that the
> local jump operator was not broadcasting a jump announcement on the
> CTAF. It turns out that one of his radios was in-op, and he had to be
> on Seattle Center with the other. He was ****ed - but he fixed the
> radio. Did I care what he thought about me? HELL NO! I just didn't
> want one of his jumpers landing in my lap.
>
> Sometimes you have to be blunt to make a point ("what part of mid-air
> don't you understand"). I once witnessed a motorglider accident that
> should never have happened: strictly because of poor airmanship. After
> making sure the pilot, a friend of mine, was OK I told him his skills
> were seriously lacking and he needed additional instruction. I also
> told him I would prefer to have a live enemy than a dead friend. He
> ended up selling the glider - and we are still friends. Another friend
> liked to drink and fly (ultralights), despite our concerns. He is dead
> now - after losing control of his ultralight while under the
> influence. If you haven't figured it out yet, I take safety very
> seriously and will take whatever steps I feel that are necessary to
> correct a safety concern. And that includes contacting the FAA (which
> I have done several times, mostly with positive outcomes). At this
> point I do not think that that is necessary or helpful, as I believe
> (or hope) that Dave has got the message, the most important is don't
> get yourself into that position to begin with. I don't think you will
> argue with that.
>
> Let's call a truce - I don't think there is much more to be gained
> here and I don't think that we are really that much in disagreement.
>
> Tom- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Fair enough Tom.

Blunt's okay with me. When a post denigrates the motives or
intelligence of ones interlocutors it's over the line IMHO - plus you
lose your audience.

Andy

[[email protected]]

On Jan 10, 4:06*pm, " > wrote:
> Hi:
>
> Jumping into the fray here (both feet!) with some ASRS reports about
> NMACs at altitude.
>
> ACN: 751929
> Date : 200708
> (B737-300 at 14000 MSL near Reno, NV)
> Synopsis: B737 FLT CREW RPTS TCAS RA WITH GLIDER AT 14000 FT 25 NM SW
> OF RNO.
> Narrative: 14000 FT SW OF RNO, APCH ADVISED TFC WITH XPONDER AT OR
> NEAR OUR ALT. THE TFC QUICKLY BECAME A TA AND THEN AN RA. I FOLLOWED
> CONFLICT GUIDANCE WITH A DSCNT AND THEN THE RA QUICKLY COMMANDED A
> 'CLB, CLB NOW.' I QUICKLY START CLBING WITH MAX POWER AND THEN DECIDED
> TO TURN OFF COURSE TO THE WEST. A GLIDER PASSED OFF OUR R/EAST SIDE
> APPROX 200 FT COMING HEAD ON. THE TA/RA ISSUES WERE THE GLIDER WAS
> CLBING AND DSNDING WHICH CAUSED THE TA/RA TO REVERSE ITS CONFLICT CALL
> FROM DSND TO CLB. APCH IN RNO IS VERY UPSET WITH THESE GLIDERS AND WE
> NEED SOME RESTRS ON THEIR AIRSPACE TO AVOID THIS CONFLICT. THESE
> MANEUVERS WERE AGGRESSIVE AND I PERSONALLY FEEL IF THEY HAD NOT BEEN
> FOLLOWED, A WORSE SITUATION WOULD HAVE OCCURRED. GLIDER RESTRS.
>
> ACN: 739528
> Date : 200705
> (Citation II flying at 12000 MSL)
> Synopsis: C550 FLT CREW TOOK EVASIVE ACTION TO AVOID GLIDER ACTIVITY.
> Narrative: WE WERE ON THE ZZZZZ ARR INTO ZZZ, DSNDING TO 12000 FT TO
> MEET THE XING RESTR, WHEN THE CTLR TOLD US TO DSND TO 11000 FT FOR
> TFC. WE SAW A TARGET AT 500 FT ABOVE ON THE TCAS (JUST APPEARED) AND
> AS WE INCREASED OUR RATE OF DSCNT WE GOT A TFC ALERT AND THE TARGET
> TURNED TO ORANGE ON THE TCAS. WE SAW A GLIDER AND RPTED IT TO ATC (WE
> PREVIOUSLY HEARD HIM ALERT ANOTHER ACFT OF AN UNIDENTED TARGET IN THE
> AREA, POSSIBLY A GLIDER) AS THE GLIDER PASSED SLIGHTLY TO OUR 1
> O'CLOCK POS, ANOTHER GLIDER APPEARED DIRECTLY AT 12 O'CLOCK POS, THE
> PF BANKED STEEPLY TO THE R AND DSNDED FURTHER TO AVOID THE GLIDER.
> LOOKING TO MY L I SAW A FLASH OF PARTIAL GLIDER PASS ABOVE US (WE WERE
> CLOSE ENOUGH THAT THE COMPLETE WING SPAN WAS NOT VISIBLE). I ADVISED
> THE CTLR WE WERE DIVERTING FOR ANOTHER GLIDER AND WE WENT BELOW OUR
> ASSIGNED ALT BY OVER 400 FT WHILE RECOVERING. BOTH GLIDERS WERE FLYING
> JUST ABOVE THE RIDGE, A GREAT PLACE TO SOAR, BUT PRECISELY ON THE ARR
> PATH AND ALT. ONLY 1 TA WAS VISIBLE ON THE TCAS. THIS WAS A GREAT CALL
> FROM THE CTLR, AS XMISSIONS WERE THE USUAL BUSY ZZZ ARR ON A FRIDAY
> EVENING. AFTER A MOMENT OF SILENCE, I ADVISED THE CTLR AGAIN THAT
> THERE WERE 2 GLIDERS ON THE ARR ABOVE THE RIDGE. I WILL ATTEMPT TODAY
> TO CALL THE TRACON TO DISCUSS THE ALT DEV AND THANK THE CTLR FOR HIS
> VIGILANCE.
>
> ACN: 736824
> Date : 200704
> A320 at 11000 MSL
> Synopsis: A320 CAPTAIN EXPERIENCES NMAC WITH GLIDER WHILE IN DESCENT
> TO LAS.
> Narrative: NEAR MISS WITH GLIDER FLYING N TO S ALONG RIDGE LINE.
> CLOSEST POINT OF INTERCEPT: APPROX 200 FT. NO EVASIVE ACTION TAKEN
> BASED ON GEOMETRY. WE TOLD CTLR AND SHE INFORMED THE NEXT ARR ACFT
> BEHIND US OF A POSSIBLE 'PRIMARY' TARGET. I SPOKE WITH TRACON AND THEY
> SAID THEY FREQUENTLY FLY THE RIDGE AND ARE HARD TO DETECT ON RADAR. HE
> ALSO MENTIONED THAT GLIDERS CAN STILL FLY IN CLASS C WITHOUT MODE C.
>
> ACN: 716529
> Date : 200611
> B737-700 at 6000MSL near Panoche
> Synopsis: B737-700 FLT CREW HAS A TCAS RA DURING PANOCHE TWO ARR TO
> OAK.
> ACFT WAS ON PANOCHE ARR INTO OAK IN VMC CONDITIONS. WE WERE VECTORED
> 10 DEGS R OF COURSE FOR GA ACFT SEPARATION. WE WERE LEVEL AT 6000 FT
> AND INSTRUCTED TO DSND TO 5000 FT TO CLR TFC. I SAW TFC MANEUVERING AT
> OUR 11 O'CLOCK POS AND WAS TOLD BY ATC THAT IT WAS A MOONEY ABOVE US.
> HOWEVER, IT TURNED OUT TO BE A GLIDER BELOW US IN A R BANK TURNING
> DIRECTLY TOWARDS US. THE GLIDER CONTINUED TO TURN AND CLB TOWARDS US.
> I ADDED PWR AND STARTED A CLB AND TURNED AWAY FROM THE TFC. THE FO
> NOTIFIED ATC OF OUR AVOIDANCE MANEUVER JUST AS THE TCAS RA SOUNDED A
> FEW SECONDS AFTER ADDING PWR. IT INDICATED A 2000 FPM CLB IN ORDER TO
> CLR THE TFC, AND WE CLBED IMMEDIATELY TO 7000 FT. THE CTLR SEEMED
> CONFUSED TO WHY WE WERE CLBING WHEN WE WERE GIVEN A DSCNT CLRNC. THE
> CTLR DID NOT KNOW THERE WAS A GLIDER IN THE AREA AND HAD NO CONTACT
> WITH THE GLIDER. ATC INSTRUCTED US TO DSND WHEN ABLE. VFR TFC SHOULD
> AVOID MANEUVERING OVER ARR RTES WITHOUT COMMUNICATING TO ATC.
>
> ACN: 708924
> Date : 200608
> Citation V at 16000 MSL
> Synopsis: A C560 CLBING OUT OF BJC EXPERIENCED A NEAR MISS WITH A
> SAILPLANE AT 16000 FT.
>
> WHILE BEING VECTORED AROUND A SLOWER ACFT ON THE ROCK14.EKR DEP FROM
> THE BOULDER JEFFERSON COUNTY ARPT, WE EXPERIENCED A NEAR MISS WITH A
> SAILPLANE. WE WERE ASSIGNED ON A 240 DEG HDG, CLRED TO FL230 FROM
> DENVER DEP CTL ON THE 126.1 MHZ FREQ, AND CLBING AT 280 KTS CAS AT
> 2000 FPM. AT EXACTLY 16000 FT MSL, WE WERE STARTLED BY THE SIGHTING OF
> THE GLIDER AT ABOUT OUR 1 O'CLOCK POSITION AND A QUARTER MILE DISTANT.
> THE GLIDER WAS FLYING AT APPROX THE SAME HDG IN STRAIGHT AND LEVEL FLT
> SO HE WAS UNAWARE OF US AT THAT MOMENT. I MADE NO EVASIVE MANEUVER AND
> THE GLIDER PASSED OUR STARBOARD WING ABOUT TWO SECONDS LATER. MY GUESS
> IS THAT THE GLIDER WAS ABOUT A FOOTBALL FIELD LENGTH HORIZONTALLY AWAY
> -- CLOSE ENOUGH TO SEE THE PLT CLEARLY. I CAN ONLY GUESS THAT THE PLT
> OF THIS GLIDER WAS EQUALLY STARTLED BY THE SIGHT AND SOUND OF OUR
> PASSING CLOSELY AT A HIGH RATE OF SPD AND THRUST. WE MENTIONED THE
> NEAR MISS SITUATION TO DEP CTL AND HE RESPONDED TO US THAT HE HAD NO
> RADAR OR RADIO CONTACT WITH THE GLIDER. GLIDER ACFT, OUTSIDE OF CLASS
> A, B, AND C AIRSPACE, ARE EXEMPT FROM XPONDER/ALT REPORTING EQUIP
> UNDER FAR 91.215(b)(5). A WEEK AGO A HAWKER HS-125 JET COLLIDED WITH A
> GLIDER NEAR MEV IN A SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCE WITH NO CASUALTIES EXCEPT
> FOR THE TOTAL DESTRUCTION OF THE SAILPLANE AND SERIOUS DAMAGE TO THE
> JET. I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE PRUDENT FOR SAILPLANE PLTS TO CARRY A
> HANDHELD TRANSCEIVER AND POSSIBLY A MODE 3/A OR C XPONDER TO
> COMMUNICATE WITH ATC FOR SAFETY AND SURVIVAL REASONS. CARRYING ABOARD
> PORTABLE SYSTEMS WOULD NOT BE DIFFICULT. SIZE, COST, AND WT WOULD POSE
> VERY LITTLE PROBLEM. THIS INCIDENT IMPRESSED ON ME AND MY FO OF THE
> IMPORTANCE OF 'SEE-AND AVOID' ON AN IFR CLRNC IN VMC. IN SPECULATION,
> IF THE GLIDER HAD BEEN DIRECTLY IN OUR PATH, I'M CONFIDENT THAT WE
> COULD HAVE EVADED A COLLISION AT THE INITIAL SIGHTING WITH A QUARTER
> MILE SEPARATION. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY CLOSE REQUIRING AN ABRUPT
> PULL-UP MANEUVER. IF WE HAD NOT BEEN WATCHING, IN THIS SAME SCENARIO,
> I HAVE NIGHTMARES CONTEMPLATING THE RESULT.
>
> ACN: 679562
> Date : 200512
> Synopsis: A B737-300 PLT RPTS AN NMAC WITH A GLIDER AT 13000 FT APPROX
> 30 DME S ON APCH TO RNO RWY 34.
> Narrative: WHILE DSNDING ON TARVR 1 ARR INTO RNO, APCH CTLR CALLED
> POSSIBLE GLIDER TFC AT OUR 12-1 O'CLOCK POS, APPROX 5 MI, ALT UNKNOWN.
> WE ENTERED A CLOUD CONTINUING OUR IFR DSCNT. UPON EXITING THE CLOUD AT
> APPROX 13000 FT MSL AND 30 DME FROM RNO, ON THE TARVR 1 ARR BTWN THE
> FIXES TARVR AND SPOON, THE CAPT SPOTTED THE GLIDER AT CLOSE RANGE ON
> THE APPROX SAME HDG AND ALT. THE CAPT TOOK CTL OF THE ACFT. THE CAPT
> TOOK EVASIVE MANEUVERS TO AVOID THE GLIDER. THE CLOSEST POINT OF APCH
> WAS APPROX 200 FT. WE INFORMED THE CTLR OF THE NMAC AND CONTINUED
> UNEVENTFULLY INTO RENO. I BELIEVE THE GLIDER HAD NO SITUATIONAL
> AWARENESS AS TO HIS LOCATION ALONG THE ARR INTO RENO. PERHAPS THE
> GLIDER PLTS NEED SOME WAY OF BEING INFORMED WHEN RENO IS CONDUCTING N
> ARRS.
>
> ACN: 656782
> Date : 200505
> Synopsis: B737 FLT CREW WITH ZAU AT 7000 FT EXPERIENCED NMAC WITH
> UNRPTED SAILPLANE DURING ARR TO MDW.
> Narrative: I WAS ON THE MOTIF ARR TO MDW TALKING TO ZAU. I CANNOT
> RECALL THE FREQ, BUT THE LAST ONE BEFORE HDOF TO APCH. WE WERE
> ORIGINALLY CLRED TO CROSS 5 MI S OF JOT AT 6000 FT AND WERE THEN CLRED
> TO CROSS 10 MI S OF JOT AT 7000 FT, WHICH WE COMPLIED. FLT CONDITIONS
> WERE CLR OF CLOUDS AND HAZY WITH FLT VISIBILITY AROUND 5 MI. WE WERE
> LEVEL AT 7000 FT INDICATING 250 KTS WITH THE FO FLYING. I WAS DOING MY
> NORMAL SCAN FOR TFC WHEN JUST AHEAD, APPROX 11 O'CLOCK POS, A
> SAILPLANE APPEARED STRAIGHT-ON IN A STEEP R BANK. IT WENT PAST MY SIDE
> WINDOW STILL IN THE BANK, BUT VERY CLOSE, MAYBE 200 FT LEFT AND LESS
> THAN 50 FT ABOVE. THIS ALL HAPPENED IN AN INSTANT, BUT I ACTUALLY SAW
> THE PLT IN HIS SEAT. THE SAILPLANE WAS A T-TAIL SINGLE SEAT VERSION.
> MY FO ALSO SAW THE ACFT FOR AN INSTANT AFTER HE MUST HAVE HEARD ME SAY
> AN '&^%$#.' THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO TIME FOR AN EVASIVE MANEUVER. THE
> ACFT APPEARED OUT OF NOWHERE AND ITS CROSS SECTION STRAIGHT-ON IN HAZY
> CONDITIONS MADE IT NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE. I CALLED THE CTR AND SAID
> I HAD A CLOSE CALL WITH A SAILPLANE AND WAS ASKED HOW CLOSE. I SAID
> LESS THAN 500 FT, AND HE ACKNOWLEDGED SAYING THAT NO ACFT WAS BEING
> PAINTED NEAR ME. I WAS THEN HANDED OVER TO CHICAGO APCH CTL AND ALSO
> TOLD HIM ABOUT THE SAILPLANE ACTIVITY ON THE ARR, AND HE SAID HE WAS
> GETTING A HIT EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE IN THAT AREA. I BELIEVE THAT IF WE
> WERE 100 FT LEFT AND A FEW FT HIGHER, A COLLISION WOULD HAVE OCCURRED.
> AS A CREW, WE WERE ACTIVELY SCANNING AND PREPARING FOR 'NORMAL'
> VECTORS TO THE APCH. I SAW NO FAULT IN ATC WHATSOEVER. I WOULD LIKE TO
> KNOW WHY SAILPLANES ARE ALLOWED TO FLY ON A KNOWN ARR RTE TO ONE OF
> THE BUSIEST AIRSPACES IN THE COUNTRY, ESPECIALLY WITHOUT A XPONDER. I
> HAVE WRACKED MY BRAIN TRYING TO THINK OF WHAT I COULD HAVE DONE
> DIFFERENTLY, BUT FIND NOTHING. WE WERE A STERILE COCKPIT WITH ALL ACFT
> LIGHTS. I JUST DID NOT SEE THE ACFT COMING, AND ANY REACTION WOULD
> HAVE BEEN TOO LATE. THE GLIDERS HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO BE FLYING, BUT
> MAYBE A CHANGE IN THE ARR RTE AWAY FROM GLIDER FIELDS OR AN ALT CAP
> FOR THEM IN THAT AREA SHOULD BE LOOKED AT. ALSO, TRAINING TO THE
> GLIDER PLTS IN THE AREA OUGHT TO BE GIVEN, OUTLINING THE HIGH DENSITY
> ARR RTES TO THE CHICAGO AREA. IT WAS A CHILLING EVENT TO MY FO AND ME.
> IT WAS A VERY CLOSE CALL.
>
> ACN: 621472
> Date : 200406
> Synopsis: S56 CTLR RPTED NMAC BTWN B737 ARR TO SLC AND GLIDER AT 11000
> FT.
> Narrative: I WAS WORKING THE JORDAN RADAR SECTOR (SALT LAKE CITY
> TRACON) AND HAD CLRED ACFT X FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 34R. AT 11000 FT
> HE RPTED TAKING EVASIVE ACTION TO MISS A GLIDER AND RPTED AN NMAC. I
> NEVER OBSERVED ANY TFC IN HIS VICINITY. THE AREA IS APPROX 8 MI FROM A
> KNOWN GLIDER AREA, WHERE THERE IS A 'GLIDER BOX' FOR GLIDERS TO CLB/
> DSND THROUGH ...
>
> read more »

Great post - sobering.

[Alastair Harrison]

wrote:
> Hi:
>
> Jumping into the fray here (both feet!) with some ASRS reports about
> NMACs at altitude.
>

....

<SNIPPED a number of sobering reports>

....

> These came from the first 50 hits from a search on "glider" on the
> ASRS database.
>
> -Teresa
>


Yes, sobering indeed. Forgive my ignorance, but why are the reports
written in that compressed style and missing lots of vowels? Is there a
good reason, or is it historical?

Alastair

[01-- Zero One]

SO U DNT FRGT HW TO READ THE ARCNE WTHR FRCSTS.





"Alastair Harrison" > wrote in message
:

> wrote:
> > Hi:
> >
> > Jumping into the fray here (both feet!) with some ASRS reports about
> > NMACs at altitude.
> >
>
> ...
>
> <SNIPPED a number of sobering reports>
>
> ...
>
> > These came from the first 50 hits from a search on "glider" on the
> > ASRS database.
> >
> > -Teresa
> >
>
>
> Yes, sobering indeed. Forgive my ignorance, but why are the reports
> written in that compressed style and missing lots of vowels? Is there a
> good reason, or is it historical?
>
> Alastair

[JJ Sinclair]

On Jan 10, 4:06*pm, " > wrote:
> Hi:
>
> Jumping into the fray here (both feet!) with some ASRS reports about
> NMACs at altitude.

Last year I installed a transponder and PCAS and I wouldn't fly around
Reno without them. Last spring a light twin and I saw and talked (on
123.3) We were below Reno's radar coverage, he saw my 0440 squawk on
his TCAS and I picked up his transponder on my
PCAS........................That report about gliders coming down the
ridge line at 12,000 feet is undoubtedly from the Dog Skins Ridge just
west of Air Sailing. This is serious, folks..........we can
voluntarialy install transponders now (around areas like Reno) or
have them mandated right after a glider gets shredded by an airliner!
I can see the headline now, "Pleasure seekers flying plastic toys,
endanger the flying public".
JJ

[Shawn[_5_]]

JJ Sinclair wrote:
> On Jan 10, 4:06 pm, " > wrote:
>> Hi:
>>
>> Jumping into the fray here (both feet!) with some ASRS reports about
>> NMACs at altitude.
>
> Last year I installed a transponder and PCAS and I wouldn't fly around
> Reno without them. Last spring a light twin and I saw and talked (on
> 123.3) We were below Reno's radar coverage, he saw my 0440 squawk on
> his TCAS and I picked up his transponder on my
> PCAS........................That report about gliders coming down the
> ridge line at 12,000 feet is undoubtedly from the Dog Skins Ridge just
> west of Air Sailing. This is serious, folks..........we can
> voluntarialy install transponders now (around areas like Reno) or
> have them mandated right after a glider gets shredded by an airliner!
> I can see the headline now, "Pleasure seekers flying plastic toys,
> endanger the flying public".

Jeeze JJ, don't write the headlines for them!
I agree otherwise.

Shawn

[[email protected]]

On Jan 11, 12:06 am, Soarin Again
> wrote:
> > The SparrowHawk may be either operated as an ultralight
> >vehicle or
> >an experimental aircraft - choice of owner. There are
> >advantages and
> >disadvantages in either category. I operate my SparrowHawk
> >as an
> >ultralight but have it equipped probably better than
> >many gliders with
> >EDS O2, a transponder and a ballistic parachute. Since
> >I still belong
> >to USHPA (US Hang Gliding Paragliding Association)
> >I am covered for
> >$1,000,000 liability insurance for only $60. Also because
> >there is no
> >N number the SparrowHawk falls into the same category
> >as hang gliders/
> >paragliders and there are no local property taxes to
> >be paid. Since I
> >have 10 years of sailplane experience and most operators
> >know me in
> >this part of the world I have no problems getting a
> >tow from the local
> >FBOs. For me the obvious choice was ultralight category.
> >For others
> >there may be good reasons for experimental category.
> >These may include
> >getting hull insurance and the requirement from the
> >FBO have a
> >registered aircraft if you want a tow.
> > Because the FAA never envisioned a SparrowHawk when
> >Part 103 was
> >generated there are almost no operating restrictions
> >on an unpowered
> >ultralights - no pilot license, no air worthiness certificate,
> >no
> >pilot flying experience, no stall speed requirements,
> >no maximum speed
> >restrictions, no O2 requirements and the list goes
> >on. The only
> >restrictions are weight (155lbs without installed safety
> >equipment),
> >one person, no flying over populous areas and keeping
> >out of ATC
> >controlled airspace (A, B,C and D) except with permission.
> >I still
> >have yet to land the SparrowHawk at Reid Hillview Airport
> >(D airspace)
> >in San Jose, CA which is a very busy towered GA airport,
> >but they are
> >quite comfortable with me landing the Stemme as a glider
> >that I am
> >sure after a couple of questions and clarifications
> >I would be given
> >permission.
> >Dave
>
> I went to the Sparrowhawk web page where it
> shows the empty weight as 155 lbs. Are you saying
> that with a transponder, radio, batteries and oxygen
> system installed the Sparrowhawk still weighs only
> 155 lbs?

[5Z]

So why the %$#@& won't the FAA let someone build a modern, inexpensive
"transponder" that we could install for under $500 (perhaps even
less)??

Why must all equipment meet the highest standards??

Why is it that a "certificated" version of FLARM would likely cost
several thousand dollars and likely not be available for many years?

Think about it:

FLARM exists now and is portable. It may take some work on the
software and perhaps transmitter for it to work with closing speeds of
500+ knots, such as two jets on a head on course or glider above 10K
head on to fast jet, etc...

But, if some mandate came along to use these "as is" and every
aircraft in the US must carry one, the sheer volume would reduce the
price to just a few hundred dollars.

It wouldn't be perfect, but would likely eliminate several fatalities
a year, and many more near misses.

Granted, it wouldn't be PERFECT, but it would be MUCH better than what
we have now. Unfortunately, at least 2 problems exist:

FAA: If it's not PERFECT, we don't want it

Lawyers: It's not perfect, you knew it, and you sold it. My client's
life was saved a dozen times over the last few years, but that's not
important because last time there was a problem. So I want this
"defective" system shut down immediately and lots of $$$ as well.

---sigh.

[[email protected]]

Your interpretation of the FARs is incorrect. To be compliant with
Part 103 the basic weight of an unpowered ultralight vehicle (FAA
wording not mine) must be less than 155lbs excluding safety equipment.
What is safety equipment? My interpretation is radio, transponder,
battery for such, ballistic parachute, necessary instruments for safe
flying (altimeter, air speed indicator, vario etc.) and oxygen and so
on. This brings the weight of my SparrowHawk up to about 195 lbs. This
actually makes sense when you think about it. You wouldn't want to
discourage the use of safety equipment. The other weight issue is the
max gross weight set by the manufacturer which includes the pilot
weight etc. With me flying the SparrowHawk I am below that limit.
As I posted previously the US FARs are out of date in many important
areas. If this subject interests you, check on the ultralight and
glider rules and regs in other countries around the world. What you
will find might surprise you.
Dave

You wrote:

I went to the Sparrowhawk web page where it
shows the empty weight as 155 lbs. Are you saying
that with a transponder, radio, batteries and oxygen
system installed the Sparrowhawk still weighs only
155 lbs?

[John Smith]

Alastair Harrison wrote:

> Forgive my ignorance, but why are the reports
> written in that compressed style and missing lots of vowels?

And even worse, all caps. Damn, it's known that there's nothing more
illegible than a text in all caps!

[Nyal Williams]

Methinks you are treading on thin ice with the phrase
'my interpretation.' My recollection is that there
was a ruling that allowed only a ballistic chute to
move the weight beyond 155lbs. I might be wrong, but
I question whether 'batteries, transponders and oxygen'
[seat belts, navigation lights, fire extinguishers,
etc.] are allowed. The regs might well be out of date
as compared with those of another country, but certainly
such a fact gets no consideration in a discussion of
legality.

There is possibly a way around this problem. If some
of these items are mounted to your person rather than
to the aircraft you might satisfy the letter of the
law. This conforms to the first law of fudging.

At 18:06 11 January 2008, wrote:
> Your interpretation of the FARs is incorrect. To
>be compliant with
>Part 103 the basic weight of an unpowered ultralight
>vehicle (FAA
>wording not mine) must be less than 155lbs excluding
>safety equipment.
>What is safety equipment? My interpretation is radio,
>transponder,
>battery for such, ballistic parachute, necessary instruments
>for safe
>flying (altimeter, air speed indicator, vario etc.)
>and oxygen and so
>on. This brings the weight of my SparrowHawk up to
>about 195 lbs. This
>actually makes sense when you think about it. You wouldn't
>want to
>discourage the use of safety equipment. The other weight
>issue is the
>max gross weight set by the manufacturer which includes
>the pilot
>weight etc. With me flying the SparrowHawk I am below
>that limit.
> As I posted previously the US FARs are out of date
>in many important
>areas. If this subject interests you, check on the
>ultralight and
>glider rules and regs in other countries around the
>world. What you
>will find might surprise you.
>Dave
>
>You wrote:
>
>I went to the Sparrowhawk web page where it
>shows the empty weight as 155 lbs. Are you saying
>that with a transponder, radio, batteries and oxygen
>system installed the Sparrowhawk still weighs only
>155 lbs?
>

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Jan 11, 1:03*pm, Nyal Williams
> wrote:
> Methinks you are treading on thin ice with the phrase
> 'my interpretation.' ...

I concur, very thin ice indeed. According to 14CFR part 103.1:

**************begin paste from ecfr.gpoaccess.gov **************

§ 103.1 Applicability.

This part prescribes rules governing the operation of ultralight
vehicles in the United States. For the purposes of this part, an
ultralight vehicle is a vehicle that:

(a) Is used or intended to be used for manned operation in the air by
a single occupant;

(b) Is used or intended to be used for recreation or sport purposes
only;

(c) Does not have any U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate; and

(d) If unpowered, weighs less than 155 pounds; or

(e) If powered:

(1) Weighs less than 254 pounds empty weight, excluding floats and
safety devices which are intended for deployment in a potentially
catastrophic situation;

(2) Has a fuel capacity not exceeding 5 U.S. gallons;

(3) Is not capable of more than 55 knots calibrated airspeed at full
power in level flight; and

(4) Has a power-off stall speed which does not exceed 24 knots
calibrated airspeed.

**************end paste from ecfr.gpoaccess.gov **************

Note that there is indeed an exception to the 254 lb empty weight for
powered ultralights, and that it applies to floats and certain "safety
devices."

However, note also that:

* The empty weight exception allowed by 14CFR103.1(e)(1) applies to
the 254 lb empty weight of powered ultralights, but does not apply to
the 155 lb empty weight of unpowered ultralights.

* The "safety devices" that 14CFR103.1(e)(1) allows in addition to the
empty weight is explicitly limited to those "which are intended for
deployment in a potentially catastrophic situation."

Thanks, Bob K.

[Shawn[_5_]]

Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> On Jan 11, 1:03 pm, Nyal Williams
> > wrote:
>> Methinks you are treading on thin ice with the phrase
>> 'my interpretation.' ...
>
> I concur, very thin ice indeed. According to 14CFR part 103.1:
>
> **************begin paste from ecfr.gpoaccess.gov **************
>
> § 103.1 Applicability.
>
> This part prescribes rules governing the operation of ultralight
> vehicles in the United States. For the purposes of this part, an
> ultralight vehicle is a vehicle that:
>
> (a) Is used or intended to be used for manned operation in the air by
> a single occupant;
>
> (b) Is used or intended to be used for recreation or sport purposes
> only;
>
> (c) Does not have any U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate; and
>
> (d) If unpowered, weighs less than 155 pounds; or
>
> (e) If powered:
>
> (1) Weighs less than 254 pounds empty weight, excluding floats and
> safety devices which are intended for deployment in a potentially
> catastrophic situation;
>
> (2) Has a fuel capacity not exceeding 5 U.S. gallons;

Anyone know why gliders are limited to a lower empty weight than the
power guys? Sounds logical at first, but doesn't make a lot of sense
when you consider that 99 additional pounds can be concentrated into a
chunk of whirling hot metal, and another 35 lbs of additional permitted
weight is in the form of an extremely flammable liquid (hooked to the
hot chunk of metal). Just wondering, is there a good, by FAA terms ;-)
explanation?
The Sparrowhawk seems to really push the weight reduction limits (e.g.
custom wheel brake and tow hook). Think of what the glider industry
could do with 250 lbs of relatively unregulated glider to mess around
with! Here's to dreaming...

> (3) Is not capable of more than 55 knots calibrated airspeed at full
> power in level flight; and
>
> (4) Has a power-off stall speed which does not exceed 24 knots
> calibrated airspeed.

Also, Windward's website shows a stall speed of 32 kts for the
Sparrowhawk. Different rules for gliders here too?


Shawn

[Shawn[_5_]]

Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> On Jan 11, 1:03 pm, Nyal Williams
> > wrote:
>> Methinks you are treading on thin ice with the phrase
>> 'my interpretation.' ...
>
> I concur, very thin ice indeed. According to 14CFR part 103.1:
>
> **************begin paste from ecfr.gpoaccess.gov **************
>
> § 103.1 Applicability.
>
> This part prescribes rules governing the operation of ultralight
> vehicles in the United States. For the purposes of this part, an
> ultralight vehicle is a vehicle that:
>
> (a) Is used or intended to be used for manned operation in the air by
> a single occupant;
>
> (b) Is used or intended to be used for recreation or sport purposes
> only;
>
> (c) Does not have any U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate; and
>
> (d) If unpowered, weighs less than 155 pounds; or
>
> (e) If powered:
>
> (1) Weighs less than 254 pounds empty weight, excluding floats and
> safety devices which are intended for deployment in a potentially
> catastrophic situation;
>
> (2) Has a fuel capacity not exceeding 5 U.S. gallons;

Anyone know why gliders are limited to a lower empty weight than the
power guys? Sounds logical at first, but doesn't make a lot of sense
when you consider that 99 additional pounds can be concentrated into a
chunk of whirling hot metal, and another 35 lbs of additional permitted
weight is in the form of an extremely flammable liquid (hooked to the
hot chunk of metal). Just wondering, is there a good, by FAA terms ;-)
explanation?
The Sparrowhawk seems to really push the weight reduction limits (e.g.
custom wheel brake and tow hook). Think of what the glider industry
could do with 250 lbs of relatively unregulated glider to mess around
with! Here's to dreaming...

> (3) Is not capable of more than 55 knots calibrated airspeed at full
> power in level flight; and
>
> (4) Has a power-off stall speed which does not exceed 24 knots
> calibrated airspeed.

Also, Windward's website shows a stall speed of 32 kts for the
Sparrowhawk. Different rules for gliders here too?


Shawn

[J a c k[_2_]]

Philip Plane wrote:

> I wouldn't say 'cannot', but on my DG1000 the brakes are hard to get on
> and off the overcenter lock at high speed. Due to wing flex I expect. Hard
> enough that I have done a high speed final glide holding the brakes closed
> because I couldn't get them locked. 'High speed' would be something over
> 100 knots.
>
> I noticed the same thing in a Libelle 201 when I tried using the brakes
> at high speed.


So all of that begs the question, "Did you reduce the load on the wings
momentarily in order to reduce the flex, and therefor lighten the force
necessary to change your configuration?"

This stuff _may_ be rocket science, I wouldn't know--never having been
in a rocket.


Jack

[J a c k[_2_]]

John Smith wrote:

> Actually, the term is absolutely correct and not a stupid choice at all.
> In class E airspace there is IFR traffic on an IFR clearance. So that
> airspace *is* controlled. For IFR traffic, anyway.


The AIRSPACE is not controlled there or anywhere else (outside of
certain restricted areas where the control can be, shall we say, very
positive). The TRAFFIC is controlled.


Jack

[Philip Plane]

J a c k wrote:

> So all of that begs the question, "Did you reduce the load on the wings
> momentarily in order to reduce the flex, and therefor lighten the force
> necessary to change your configuration?"
>
> This stuff _may_ be rocket science, I wouldn't know--never having been
> in a rocket.

When I played around to test the loads I flew straight and steady in
smoothish conditions.

When I descended the DG1000 from the wave through the rotor and low
level turbulence the wings flexed both ways. It didn't make it any
easier to lock the brakes.

--
Philip Plane _____
|
---------------( )---------------
Glider pilots have no visible means of support

[JJ Sinclair]

I'm sick of sanding this DG and it's still several hours before the
Packers start beating up on the Sea Gulls, so let me tell you a little
story about busting the PC. We were on an low level VFR route in the
RF-4C, early in out training that offered an all expence paid vacation
to Cong's Ville upon graduation. We hit a couple of targets out in the
desert and then the route took us into the mountains north of Mt.
Home, ID where we encountered a solid deck about 2000 above us. We
pressed on and soon were rapidly painting ourselves into a corner (box
canyon). I told my pilot; let's forget this and get out of here! He
replied; I don't have clearance to enter the clouds. Allow me to state
here that the 1/lt Nose-Gunner, the Air Force issued me was long on
regulations and short on judgment! Soon we were in real trouble, 100
feet off the pine-cones and 100 feet below the
clouds.................................at which time I yelled, Screw
the clearance, CLIMB. We did and finally got hold of center at 10,000
feet. Did we endanger anyone? Did center even know we were in the
soup? Was there anyone else, dumb enough to be flying low in the WX,
near the rocks? Did the original poster endanger anyone by busting the
PC over Reno? He had a transponder and all the folks up there had one
too + TCAS and besides the safest place to be is 18 right over the
Reno. The dangerous place is 9 to 12 thousand at 10 to 20 miles out.
Center was painting him and would/could have diverter any potential
conflicts. I don't think anyone was endangered, except he could have
pulled the wings off by foolishly trying to stay below 18. Remember, a
26 driver did just that right over Reno and endangered himself and
those on the ground with falling pieces of fiberglass. I say he did
the right thing. Now the rest of us, If you fly around
Reno...........get a transponder!
OK, rant's over, bring on the Sea Gulls!
JJ

[bumper]

Agreeing with JJ . . .

And besides transponder, Dave also had a TPAS, so at least he could tell
there were no potential targets above him when he pulled stick.

bumper
(Xponder and TPAS)
Minden, NV
zz
Proudly purveying QV's and MKII's

"JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message
...
> I'm sick of sanding this DG and it's still several hours before the
> Packers start beating up on the Sea Gulls, so let me tell you a little
> story about busting the PC. We were on an low level VFR route in the
> RF-4C, early in out training that offered an all expence paid vacation
> to Cong's Ville upon graduation. We hit a couple of targets out in the
> desert and then the route took us into the mountains north of Mt.
> Home, ID where we encountered a solid deck about 2000 above us. We
> pressed on and soon were rapidly painting ourselves into a corner (box
> canyon). I told my pilot; let's forget this and get out of here! He
> replied; I don't have clearance to enter the clouds. Allow me to state
> here that the 1/lt Nose-Gunner, the Air Force issued me was long on
> regulations and short on judgment! Soon we were in real trouble, 100
> feet off the pine-cones and 100 feet below the
> clouds.................................at which time I yelled, Screw
> the clearance, CLIMB. We did and finally got hold of center at 10,000
> feet. Did we endanger anyone? Did center even know we were in the
> soup? Was there anyone else, dumb enough to be flying low in the WX,
> near the rocks? Did the original poster endanger anyone by busting the
> PC over Reno? He had a transponder and all the folks up there had one
> too + TCAS and besides the safest place to be is 18 right over the
> Reno. The dangerous place is 9 to 12 thousand at 10 to 20 miles out.
> Center was painting him and would/could have diverter any potential
> conflicts. I don't think anyone was endangered, except he could have
> pulled the wings off by foolishly trying to stay below 18. Remember, a
> 26 driver did just that right over Reno and endangered himself and
> those on the ground with falling pieces of fiberglass. I say he did
> the right thing. Now the rest of us, If you fly around
> Reno...........get a transponder!
> OK, rant's over, bring on the Sea Gulls!
> JJ

[Soarin Again]

>I concur, very thin ice indeed. According to 14CFR
>part 103.1:
>(d) If unpowered, weighs less than 155 pounds; or
>(4) Has a power-off stall speed which does not exceed
>24 knots
>calibrated airspeed.
>Thanks, Bob K.

Since I still belong to USHPA (US Hang Gliding Paragliding
Association) I am covered for
$1,000,000 liability insurance for only $60.
Dave

So since apparently Daves Sparrowhawk is too heavy
and has too high of a stall speed to be an ultralight.
Will his USHPA insurance still pay off on their $1,000,000
policy in the event he has an accident?

[Soarin Again]

>I concur, very thin ice indeed. According to 14CFR
>part 103.1:
>(d) If unpowered, weighs less than 155 pounds; or
>(4) Has a power-off stall speed which does not exceed
>24 knots
>calibrated airspeed.
>Thanks, Bob K.

Since I still belong to USHPA (US Hang Gliding Paragliding
Association) I am covered for
$1,000,000 liability insurance for only $60.
Dave

So since apparently Daves Sparrowhawk is too heavy
and has too high of a stall speed to be an ultralight.
Will his USHPA insurance still pay off on their $1,000,000
policy in the event he has an accident?

[J a c k[_2_]]

JJ Sinclair wrote:
> I'm sick of sanding this DG and it's still several hours before the
> Packers start beating up on the Sea Gulls, so let me tell you a little
> story about busting the PC. We were on an low level VFR route in the
> RF-4C, early in out training that offered an all expence paid vacation
> to Cong's Ville upon graduation. We hit a couple of targets out in the
> desert and then the route took us into the mountains north of Mt.
> Home, ID where we encountered a solid deck about 2000 above us. We
> pressed on and soon were rapidly painting ourselves into a corner (box
> canyon). I told my pilot; let's forget this and get out of here! He
> replied; I don't have clearance to enter the clouds. Allow me to state
> here that the 1/lt Nose-Gunner, the Air Force issued me was long on
> regulations and short on judgment! Soon we were in real trouble, 100
> feet off the pine-cones and 100 feet below the
> clouds....


Another fine ATC product, not in TAC nearly long enough to absorb the
culture.

Why in the world would anyone put a 1/Lt in an RF? I thought that was
Senior Captain and Field-Grade work.


Jack

[JJ Sinclair]

> Another fine ATC product, not in TAC nearly long enough to absorb the
> culture.
>
> Why in the world would anyone put a 1/Lt in an RF? I thought that was
> Senior Captain and Field-Grade work.
>
> Jack

Hi Jack,
Oops, best not say that to an airline pilot!

I got to admit that I choose the guy (1/lt driver) The scene was
something like this; 8 navigators (all Captains fresh out of the belly
of the buff) sitting in the breffing room waiting for class 67B to
form up. In walks four First Liutenants (fresh out of the back seat
of the F-4) and four grisley looking light Colonels (fresh out of the
Pentagon, via command & staff school)...............................I
turned to my buddy and said; "I'm getting me one of those Liutenants,
at least they know the airplane. Those Colonels will kill you for
sure".........................Man was I wrong, my Liutenant tried real
hard to kill me and one of those grisley old Colonels ended up getting
the Silver Star for some foolishness north of the DMZ.
JJ

[J a c k[_2_]]

JJ Sinclair wrote:

> I got to admit that I choose the guy (1/lt driver) The scene was
> something like this; 8 navigators (all Captains fresh out of the belly
> of the buff) sitting in the breffing room waiting for class 67B to
> form up. In walks four First Liutenants (fresh out of the back seat
> of the F-4) and four grisley looking light Colonels (fresh out of the
> Pentagon, via command & staff school)...............................I
> turned to my buddy and said; "I'm getting me one of those Liutenants,
> at least they know the airplane. Those Colonels will kill you for
> sure".........................Man was I wrong, my Liutenant tried real
> hard to kill me and one of those grisley old Colonels ended up getting
> the Silver Star for some foolishness north of the DMZ.

So, your mission--which you chose to accept-was to save that 1LT's butt,
and let the LC's take care of something else that needed caring for (Karma).

Wonder where that 1Lt is today?


Jack

[JJ Sinclair]

> Wonder where that 1Lt is today?
>
> Jack

I had to jettison him after he showed me how to pull 6 G's with the
power at idle..................then we got out and walked!

My pilot in the F-111 said he knew him (my old RF driver) They made
him an instructor in T-38's where he lead a 4 ship of 38's right
through another 4 ship formation! Nobody crunched.
JJ