Troubling story and some questions

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

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

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

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 a

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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