Follow up: Troubling story etc

[[email protected]]

Hi Gang
I received a large number of responses to my posting both on RAS
(25) and privately and would like to respond to some of the issues.
Firstly I would like to reiterate that the reason for my posting was
to make pilots aware of not paying attention to critical
considerations, situations can quickly get out of hand. We seem to
have here in Minden at least one destruction of an aircraft (Carat and
ASW26) every 2 years and almost the same number of deaths in
situations where if the pilots had flown reasonably in wave these
accidents could have been avoided. I came close and it was a wake up
call. Enough!
I would like to discuss communications with ATC especially around
Reno which is an International Airport. My rule of thumb is never to
burden them with chit chat but to communicate when necessary. When
flying in wave I monitor Reno Approach ( 2 frequencies - one from the
south and one from the north) and if close to 18k I do not
communicate. If flying anywhere close to approaches or flyways I speak
to them and give them my intentions. This works well and if there are
several gliders flying doing the same this doesbad not over burden
them. When I got into my situation I was monitoring Reno Approach and
there were no other aircraft in my vicinity. I knew I would have to
fly higher for a very short time so should I have called them and
declared an emergency? I think not! What would I have said: "This is
an ultalight vehicle (FAA definition of my flying machine), 8 miles
NV of Reno declaring an emergency, squawking 0440, request operation
to 19k from present altitude." What would ATC have said in
response: :You are what? Repeat request and say N number." Would this
have started a useful interchange of ideas. I think not. No I had to
as safely as possible fix my mess and get down to below 18k.
Lets talk reporting altitudes to ATC. Below is a private response to
a question concerning altitudes:

"Thanks for your reply. The actual difference in indicated altitudes
between the transponder and the pressure altitude altimeter that day
was very small because barometric air pressure was close to the
standard value. You are correct that up to Class A air space altitudes
are given based on surface pressures. Above 18k all altitudes must be
given using the standard pressure. So there can be a dilemma. There is
a region of uncertainty around 18k. If the transponder says 18.2k (my
Becker transponder displays its altitude) and the pressure altitude
reading says 17.8k and ATC asks what altitude you are what do you say?
OK. So what happens in practice? When I am close to Reno monitoring
ATC and ATC informs another aircraft of my presence they always use my
transponder altitude using an expression like this: "Glider at your 3
o'clock indicating one five thousand one hundred feet" ATC never
corrects my transponder altitude below 18k to actual altitude. So in
extreme conditions there can be errors of several hundred feet between
what is reported and reality. The solution? GPS, GPS, and GPS! "

And finally VNE at altitude. IAS has to be adjusted for altitude to
give TAS. It is generally accepted that rule of thumb reckoning for
every 1000 feet above sea level TAS has to be increased by 1.5%
although at high altitudes 30k it is closer to 2% (Check site given
below. It has an excellent article). So how do sailplane manufacturers
rate their machines? In general fairly close to the above. Eric
Greenwell in a previous posting gives the IAS for the ASW26 and I have
checked the same for my Stemme S10-VT and in private correspondence I
find other sailplanes are similarly placarded. This does not answer my
original question about the sensitivity of flutter to altitude and
true air speed. No one, including me, to date has been able to
identify any meaningful articles on the subject.
Dave

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/video_popup_windows_skin/1519472

[Mike Schumann]

If you are flying at these types of altitudes, wouldn't it make sense to
contact ATC and request flight following?

Mike Schumann

> wrote in message
...
> Hi Gang
> I received a large number of responses to my posting both on RAS
> (25) and privately and would like to respond to some of the issues.
> Firstly I would like to reiterate that the reason for my posting was
> to make pilots aware of not paying attention to critical
> considerations, situations can quickly get out of hand. We seem to
> have here in Minden at least one destruction of an aircraft (Carat and
> ASW26) every 2 years and almost the same number of deaths in
> situations where if the pilots had flown reasonably in wave these
> accidents could have been avoided. I came close and it was a wake up
> call. Enough!
> I would like to discuss communications with ATC especially around
> Reno which is an International Airport. My rule of thumb is never to
> burden them with chit chat but to communicate when necessary. When
> flying in wave I monitor Reno Approach ( 2 frequencies - one from the
> south and one from the north) and if close to 18k I do not
> communicate. If flying anywhere close to approaches or flyways I speak
> to them and give them my intentions. This works well and if there are
> several gliders flying doing the same this doesbad not over burden
> them. When I got into my situation I was monitoring Reno Approach and
> there were no other aircraft in my vicinity. I knew I would have to
> fly higher for a very short time so should I have called them and
> declared an emergency? I think not! What would I have said: "This is
> an ultalight vehicle (FAA definition of my flying machine), 8 miles
> NV of Reno declaring an emergency, squawking 0440, request operation
> to 19k from present altitude." What would ATC have said in
> response: :You are what? Repeat request and say N number." Would this
> have started a useful interchange of ideas. I think not. No I had to
> as safely as possible fix my mess and get down to below 18k.
> Lets talk reporting altitudes to ATC. Below is a private response to
> a question concerning altitudes:
>
> "Thanks for your reply. The actual difference in indicated altitudes
> between the transponder and the pressure altitude altimeter that day
> was very small because barometric air pressure was close to the
> standard value. You are correct that up to Class A air space altitudes
> are given based on surface pressures. Above 18k all altitudes must be
> given using the standard pressure. So there can be a dilemma. There is
> a region of uncertainty around 18k. If the transponder says 18.2k (my
> Becker transponder displays its altitude) and the pressure altitude
> reading says 17.8k and ATC asks what altitude you are what do you say?
> OK. So what happens in practice? When I am close to Reno monitoring
> ATC and ATC informs another aircraft of my presence they always use my
> transponder altitude using an expression like this: "Glider at your 3
> o'clock indicating one five thousand one hundred feet" ATC never
> corrects my transponder altitude below 18k to actual altitude. So in
> extreme conditions there can be errors of several hundred feet between
> what is reported and reality. The solution? GPS, GPS, and GPS! "
>
> And finally VNE at altitude. IAS has to be adjusted for altitude to
> give TAS. It is generally accepted that rule of thumb reckoning for
> every 1000 feet above sea level TAS has to be increased by 1.5%
> although at high altitudes 30k it is closer to 2% (Check site given
> below. It has an excellent article). So how do sailplane manufacturers
> rate their machines? In general fairly close to the above. Eric
> Greenwell in a previous posting gives the IAS for the ASW26 and I have
> checked the same for my Stemme S10-VT and in private correspondence I
> find other sailplanes are similarly placarded. This does not answer my
> original question about the sensitivity of flutter to altitude and
> true air speed. No one, including me, to date has been able to
> identify any meaningful articles on the subject.
> Dave
>
> http://tvnz.co.nz/view/video_popup_windows_skin/1519472



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[bumper]

Not Dave B., but I fly out of Minden too.

No, I don't think Reno approach wants a bunch of gliders asking for flight
following. They have assigned us a discreet squawk code (0440), so they know
what we are. They've also asked us to contact them and verify altitude and
monitor their freq when we go high over the Pinenuts or head up towards
Reno. This seems to work well.

I made essentially the same mistake as Dave on one of my first wave flights.
I didn't exceed VNE though. Lesson learned is to start taking steps to
decrease climb rate when passing 17K - - either deploy spoilers, move out of
the lift band or both. Thinking you can just speed up as you approach 18
sure doesn't work, but it's a mistake you only make once (g).

bumper
zz
Minden
"Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
.. .
> If you are flying at these types of altitudes, wouldn't it make sense to
> contact ATC and request flight following?
>
> Mike Schumann
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> Hi Gang
>> I received a large number of responses to my posting both on RAS
>> (25) and privately and would like to respond to some of the issues.
>> Firstly I would like to reiterate that the reason for my posting was
>> to make pilots aware of not paying attention to critical
>> considerations, situations can quickly get out of hand. We seem to
>> have here in Minden at least one destruction of an aircraft (Carat and
>> ASW26) every 2 years and almost the same number of deaths in
>> situations where if the pilots had flown reasonably in wave these
>> accidents could have been avoided. I came close and it was a wake up
>> call. Enough!
>> I would like to discuss communications with ATC especially around
>> Reno which is an International Airport. My rule of thumb is never to
>> burden them with chit chat but to communicate when necessary. When
>> flying in wave I monitor Reno Approach ( 2 frequencies - one from the
>> south and one from the north) and if close to 18k I do not
>> communicate. If flying anywhere close to approaches or flyways I speak
>> to them and give them my intentions. This works well and if there are
>> several gliders flying doing the same this doesbad not over burden
>> them. When I got into my situation I was monitoring Reno Approach and
>> there were no other aircraft in my vicinity. I knew I would have to
>> fly higher for a very short time so should I have called them and
>> declared an emergency? I think not! What would I have said: "This is
>> an ultalight vehicle (FAA definition of my flying machine), 8 miles
>> NV of Reno declaring an emergency, squawking 0440, request operation
>> to 19k from present altitude." What would ATC have said in
>> response: :You are what? Repeat request and say N number." Would this
>> have started a useful interchange of ideas. I think not. No I had to
>> as safely as possible fix my mess and get down to below 18k.
>> Lets talk reporting altitudes to ATC. Below is a private response to
>> a question concerning altitudes:
>>
>> "Thanks for your reply. The actual difference in indicated altitudes
>> between the transponder and the pressure altitude altimeter that day
>> was very small because barometric air pressure was close to the
>> standard value. You are correct that up to Class A air space altitudes
>> are given based on surface pressures. Above 18k all altitudes must be
>> given using the standard pressure. So there can be a dilemma. There is
>> a region of uncertainty around 18k. If the transponder says 18.2k (my
>> Becker transponder displays its altitude) and the pressure altitude
>> reading says 17.8k and ATC asks what altitude you are what do you say?
>> OK. So what happens in practice? When I am close to Reno monitoring
>> ATC and ATC informs another aircraft of my presence they always use my
>> transponder altitude using an expression like this: "Glider at your 3
>> o'clock indicating one five thousand one hundred feet" ATC never
>> corrects my transponder altitude below 18k to actual altitude. So in
>> extreme conditions there can be errors of several hundred feet between
>> what is reported and reality. The solution? GPS, GPS, and GPS! "
>>
>> And finally VNE at altitude. IAS has to be adjusted for altitude to
>> give TAS. It is generally accepted that rule of thumb reckoning for
>> every 1000 feet above sea level TAS has to be increased by 1.5%
>> although at high altitudes 30k it is closer to 2% (Check site given
>> below. It has an excellent article). So how do sailplane manufacturers
>> rate their machines? In general fairly close to the above. Eric
>> Greenwell in a previous posting gives the IAS for the ASW26 and I have
>> checked the same for my Stemme S10-VT and in private correspondence I
>> find other sailplanes are similarly placarded. This does not answer my
>> original question about the sensitivity of flutter to altitude and
>> true air speed. No one, including me, to date has been able to
>> identify any meaningful articles on the subject.
>> Dave
>>
>> http://tvnz.co.nz/view/video_popup_windows_skin/1519472
>
>
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>

[Craig[_2_]]

On Jan 6, 8:30 pm, "Mike Schumann" >
wrote:
> If you are flying at these types of altitudes, wouldn't it make sense to
> contact ATC and request flight following?
>
> Mike Schumann
>
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > Hi Gang
> > I received a large number of responses to my posting both on RAS
> > (25) and privately and would like to respond to some of the issues.
> > Firstly I would like to reiterate that the reason for my posting was
> > to make pilots aware of not paying attention to critical
> > considerations, situations can quickly get out of hand. We seem to
> > have here in Minden at least one destruction of an aircraft (Carat and
> > ASW26) every 2 years and almost the same number of deaths in
> > situations where if the pilots had flown reasonably in wave these
> > accidents could have been avoided. I came close and it was a wake up
> > call. Enough!
> > I would like to discuss communications with ATC especially around
> > Reno which is an International Airport. My rule of thumb is never to
> > burden them with chit chat but to communicate when necessary. When
> > flying in wave I monitor Reno Approach ( 2 frequencies - one from the
> > south and one from the north) and if close to 18k I do not
> > communicate. If flying anywhere close to approaches or flyways I speak
> > to them and give them my intentions. This works well and if there are
> > several gliders flying doing the same this doesbad not over burden
> > them. When I got into my situation I was monitoring Reno Approach and
> > there were no other aircraft in my vicinity. I knew I would have to
> > fly higher for a very short time so should I have called them and
> > declared an emergency? I think not! What would I have said: "This is
> > an ultalight vehicle (FAA definition of my flying machine), 8 miles
> > NV of Reno declaring an emergency, squawking 0440, request operation
> > to 19k from present altitude." What would ATC have said in
> > response: :You are what? Repeat request and say N number." Would this
> > have started a useful interchange of ideas. I think not. No I had to
> > as safely as possible fix my mess and get down to below 18k.
> > Lets talk reporting altitudes to ATC. Below is a private response to
> > a question concerning altitudes:
>
> > "Thanks for your reply. The actual difference in indicated altitudes
> > between the transponder and the pressure altitude altimeter that day
> > was very small because barometric air pressure was close to the
> > standard value. You are correct that up to Class A air space altitudes
> > are given based on surface pressures. Above 18k all altitudes must be
> > given using the standard pressure. So there can be a dilemma. There is
> > a region of uncertainty around 18k. If the transponder says 18.2k (my
> > Becker transponder displays its altitude) and the pressure altitude
> > reading says 17.8k and ATC asks what altitude you are what do you say?
> > OK. So what happens in practice? When I am close to Reno monitoring
> > ATC and ATC informs another aircraft of my presence they always use my
> > transponder altitude using an expression like this: "Glider at your 3
> > o'clock indicating one five thousand one hundred feet" ATC never
> > corrects my transponder altitude below 18k to actual altitude. So in
> > extreme conditions there can be errors of several hundred feet between
> > what is reported and reality. The solution? GPS, GPS, and GPS! "
>
> > And finally VNE at altitude. IAS has to be adjusted for altitude to
> > give TAS. It is generally accepted that rule of thumb reckoning for
> > every 1000 feet above sea level TAS has to be increased by 1.5%
> > although at high altitudes 30k it is closer to 2% (Check site given
> > below. It has an excellent article). So how do sailplane manufacturers
> > rate their machines? In general fairly close to the above. Eric
> > Greenwell in a previous posting gives the IAS for the ASW26 and I have
> > checked the same for my Stemme S10-VT and in private correspondence I
> > find other sailplanes are similarly placarded. This does not answer my
> > original question about the sensitivity of flutter to altitude and
> > true air speed. No one, including me, to date has been able to
> > identify any meaningful articles on the subject.
> > Dave
>
> >http://tvnz.co.nz/view/video_popup_windows_skin/1519472
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

The flight manual for Pipestrel's Sinus has a fairly good discussion
starting on page 82
http://www.mcp.com.au/pipistrel-usa/manuals/SinusLSA.pdf

Craig

[Frank Whiteley]

On Jan 6, 1:10 pm, " >
wrote:
> Hi Gang
> I received a large number of responses to my posting both on RAS
> (25) and privately and would like to respond to some of the issues.
> Firstly I would like to reiterate that the reason for my posting was
> to make pilots aware of not paying attention to critical
> considerations, situations can quickly get out of hand. We seem to
> have here in Minden at least one destruction of an aircraft (Carat and
> ASW26) every 2 years and almost the same number of deaths in
> situations where if the pilots had flown reasonably in wave these
> accidents could have been avoided. I came close and it was a wake up
> call. Enough!
> I would like to discuss communications with ATC especially around
> Reno which is an International Airport. My rule of thumb is never to
> burden them with chit chat but to communicate when necessary. When
> flying in wave I monitor Reno Approach ( 2 frequencies - one from the
> south and one from the north) and if close to 18k I do not
> communicate. If flying anywhere close to approaches or flyways I speak
> to them and give them my intentions. This works well and if there are
> several gliders flying doing the same this doesbad not over burden
> them. When I got into my situation I was monitoring Reno Approach and
> there were no other aircraft in my vicinity. I knew I would have to
> fly higher for a very short time so should I have called them and
> declared an emergency? I think not! What would I have said: "This is
> an ultalight vehicle (FAA definition of my flying machine), 8 miles
> NV of Reno declaring an emergency, squawking 0440, request operation
> to 19k from present altitude." What would ATC have said in
> response: :You are what? Repeat request and say N number." Would this
> have started a useful interchange of ideas. I think not. No I had to
> as safely as possible fix my mess and get down to below 18k.
> Lets talk reporting altitudes to ATC. Below is a private response to
> a question concerning altitudes:
>
> "Thanks for your reply. The actual difference in indicated altitudes
> between the transponder and the pressure altitude altimeter that day
> was very small because barometric air pressure was close to the
> standard value. You are correct that up to Class A air space altitudes
> are given based on surface pressures. Above 18k all altitudes must be
> given using the standard pressure. So there can be a dilemma. There is
> a region of uncertainty around 18k. If the transponder says 18.2k (my
> Becker transponder displays its altitude) and the pressure altitude
> reading says 17.8k and ATC asks what altitude you are what do you say?
> OK. So what happens in practice? When I am close to Reno monitoring
> ATC and ATC informs another aircraft of my presence they always use my
> transponder altitude using an expression like this: "Glider at your 3
> o'clock indicating one five thousand one hundred feet" ATC never
> corrects my transponder altitude below 18k to actual altitude. So in
> extreme conditions there can be errors of several hundred feet between
> what is reported and reality. The solution? GPS, GPS, and GPS! "
>
> And finally VNE at altitude. IAS has to be adjusted for altitude to
> give TAS. It is generally accepted that rule of thumb reckoning for
> every 1000 feet above sea level TAS has to be increased by 1.5%
> although at high altitudes 30k it is closer to 2% (Check site given
> below. It has an excellent article). So how do sailplane manufacturers
> rate their machines? In general fairly close to the above. Eric
> Greenwell in a previous posting gives the IAS for the ASW26 and I have
> checked the same for my Stemme S10-VT and in private correspondence I
> find other sailplanes are similarly placarded. This does not answer my
> original question about the sensitivity of flutter to altitude and
> true air speed. No one, including me, to date has been able to
> identify any meaningful articles on the subject.
> Dave
>
> http://tvnz.co.nz/view/video_popup_windows_skin/1519472

Dave,

Couple of articles from the Ostiv Congress.

Technical Soaring, Vol 18, nr 3, July 1994
Wojciech Chajec, Critical Flutter Speed of Sailplanes Calculated for
High Altitude - Examples of Computation [Aerodynamics], page 69

Technical Soaring, Vol 18, nr 4, October 1994
Walter Stender, Fritz Kiessling, and Joachim P. Kuettner,
Possibilities of High Altitude Flutter During Wave Flights
[Aerodynamics], page 114

I don't have either copy immediately at hand. Back copies are usually
available from OSTIV at www.ostiv.fai.org. OSTIV normally has a booth
at the convention. Bernald Smith and his wife, Mark Maughmer often
staff it, but Loek Boehrmans frequently attends. They bring many back
copies to sell.

See http://en.scientificcommons.org/17836871 for a cite.

Do you know the OAT at 18K on the day?

Frank Whiteley

[[email protected]]

Hi Craig
Thanks for pointing out the Pipestrel manual. It is superb and is
much better than any aircraft manual I have ever seen. Yes it has an
excellent discussion of flutter and Pipestrel's experience when 2
pilots exceeded VNE. This manual should be compulsory reading for all
aircraft and glider pilots and, of course, for all glider
manufacturers so that they can improve their manuals. This is the kind
of info I have been searching for. Again thanks.
Dave

http://www.mcp.com.au/pipistrel-usa/manuals/SinusLSA.pdf

[[email protected]]

On Jan 6, 11:10*am, " >
wrote:
> Hi Gang
> * I received a large number of responses to my posting both on RAS
> (25) and privately and would like to respond to some of the issues.
> Firstly I would like to reiterate that the reason for my posting was
> to make pilots aware of not paying attention to critical
> considerations, situations can quickly get out of hand. We seem to
> have here in Minden at least one destruction of an aircraft (Carat and
> ASW26) every 2 years and almost the same number of deaths in
> situations where if the pilots had flown reasonably in wave these
> accidents could have been avoided. I came close and it was a wake up
> call. Enough!
> * I would like to discuss communications with ATC especially around
> Reno which is an International Airport. My rule of thumb is never to
> burden them with chit chat but to communicate when necessary. When
> flying in wave I monitor Reno Approach ( 2 frequencies - one from the
> south and one from the north) and if close to 18k I do not
> communicate. If flying anywhere close to approaches or flyways I speak
> to them and give them my intentions. This works well and if there are
> several gliders flying doing the same this doesbad *not over burden
> them. When I got into my situation I was monitoring Reno Approach and
> there were no other aircraft in my vicinity. I knew I would have to
> fly higher for a very short time so should I have called them and
> declared an emergency? I think not! What would I have said: "This is
> an ultalight vehicle (FAA definition of my flying machine), *8 miles
> NV of Reno declaring an emergency, squawking 0440, request operation
> to 19k from present altitude." What would ATC have said in
> response: :You are what? Repeat request and say N number." Would this
> have started a useful interchange of ideas. I think not. No I had to
> as safely as possible fix my mess and get down to below 18k.
> * Lets talk reporting altitudes to ATC. Below is a private response to
> a question concerning altitudes:
>
> *"Thanks for your reply. The actual difference in indicated altitudes
> between the transponder and the pressure altitude altimeter that day
> was very small because barometric air pressure was close to the
> standard value. You are correct that up to Class A air space altitudes
> are given based on surface pressures. Above 18k all altitudes must be
> given using the standard pressure. So there can be a dilemma. There is
> a region of uncertainty around 18k. If the transponder says 18.2k (my
> Becker transponder displays its altitude) and the pressure altitude
> reading says 17.8k and ATC asks what altitude you are what do you say?
> OK. So what happens in practice? When I am close to Reno monitoring
> ATC and ATC informs another aircraft of my presence they always use my
> transponder altitude using an expression like this: "Glider at your 3
> o'clock indicating one five thousand one hundred feet" ATC never
> corrects my transponder altitude below 18k to actual altitude. So in
> extreme conditions there can be errors of several hundred feet between
> what is reported and reality. The solution? GPS, GPS, and GPS! "
>
> * And finally VNE at altitude. IAS has to be adjusted for altitude to
> give TAS. It is generally accepted that rule of thumb reckoning for
> every 1000 feet above sea level TAS has to be increased by 1.5%
> although at high altitudes 30k it is closer to 2% (Check site given
> below. It has an excellent article). So how do sailplane manufacturers
> rate their machines? In general fairly close to the above. Eric
> Greenwell in a previous posting gives the IAS for the ASW26 and I have
> checked the same for my Stemme S10-VT and in private correspondence I
> find other sailplanes are similarly placarded. This does not answer my
> original question about the sensitivity of flutter to altitude and
> true air speed. No one, including me, to date has been able to
> identify any meaningful articles on the subject.
> Dave
>
> http://tvnz.co.nz/view/video_popup_windows_skin/1519472

Your general attitude is extremely disturbing to me: you didn't want
to "over burden them"? Give me a break! First: ATC is there to assist
any aircraft in their control zone, although their immediate
responsibility is to a/c under their control. Secondly, you were
ALREADY burdening them by an unauthorized entry into controlled
airspace (which IS a violation of FARs). The way I read your response
is that you wanted to - quitely - exit out of Class A w/o attracting
attention, which is exactly what you did. All you would have had to
say was something to the effect:

"Reno Approach, this glider XXX. I am executing an emergency climb
through 18 thousand at location Y degrees and Z miles from Reno. I
request that this area be cleared of traffic until I have this
emergency under control and can safely descend below 18 thousand."

DO NOT say you are an "ultra light vehicle", this will only add to the
confusion. No doubt they will ask you to explain the nature of your
emergency. And make no mistake: you DID have an emergency. Getting
yourself into the position of having no options (redline at 18k)
suggests poor pilot judgment. I hope that somebody down there talks to
you about your responsibilities concerning airspace; you seem to be
oblivious to them. I recommend that you take the initiative and talk
this over with a CFIG before responding.

Tom Seim

[John Smith]

wrote:

> Thanks for pointing out the Pipestrel manual. It is superb and is
> much better than any aircraft manual I have ever seen. Yes it has an
> excellent discussion of flutter and Pipestrel's experience when 2
> pilots exceeded VNE. This manual should be compulsory reading for all
> aircraft and glider pilots and, of course, for all glider
> manufacturers so that they can improve their manuals. This is the kind
> of info I have been searching for.

I disagree. This extremely verbose chatter is *not* what I want to read
in a manual. All I want to see is a table with the speed limits at
several altitudes, like e.g. on page 2.3 (below) of
http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/Data/Manuals/flugh-1000s-e.pdf

The background for this is basic aviation knowledge which hopefully
every pilot has learned and understood. I don't want to have to sift
through this stuff over and over again each time I look up a number in a
manual.

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jan 7, 10:59*am, " >
wrote:
> Hi Craig
> * Thanks for pointing out the Pipestrel manual. It is superb and is
> much better than any aircraft manual I have ever seen.

What have you been reading?? Looks more like Noddy's book of
Aeronautics to me.

Andy

[Brad[_2_]]

> What have you been reading?? Looks more like Noddy's book of
> Aeronautics to me.

According to Percy Jones..............Noddy went to Sweeden.

Brad