Spinning (mis)concepts

Ian,

You have near enough admitted that you are extrapolating
information that clearly isnt there from the accident
reports. In my 15 years of reading S+G I have never
seen a 'Competition Pilots not in Competition accident
section'. Also accusing every comp pilot of not owning
up to incidents is just plain rubbish not to mention
insulting.

Please keep you amateur accident statistics thoughts
to yourself. You dont do anyone any favours including
yourself.

BTW. I have seen an early solo pilot 'Push on' which
resullted in a crash. Was he an aspiring comp pilot,
influenced by a comp pilot or did he just get it wrong?

Owain




At 17:36 28 January 2004, Ian Johnston wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 12:37:49 UTC, Owain Walters
wrote:

: we all know, from the accident statistics, just how
: safe competition
: pilots are, don't we?
:
: I am assuming you are being sarcastic?

Yup.

: Where are you
: getting your competition vs. normal flying accident
: statistics from?

Reading the blood-and-gore pages of S&G

: I am interested because the vast majority of accident
: reports I read are nothing to do with competitions.

Well of course not. When you stuff up landing a glider
in a field
after pressing on, too late, too low and too tired,
you don't have to
compound things by owning up ...

Incidentally, note that I said 'competition pilots'
and not 'pilots
flying in competitions' ...

Ian

On 1/29/04 9:00 AM, in article ,
"Owain Walters" wrote:

... accusing every comp pilot of not owning
up to incidents is just plain rubbish not to mention
insulting.

Is this a claim that the statistics based on reports of accidents/incidents
involving competition pilots are never skewed by the actions these pilots
may take to avoid being included in official reporting?

No one accused "every comp pilot", though the implication that some would
like to remain unidentified in certain reporting is inescapable and, I
suspect, quite true.

More evil tricks by the "dirty old men" of EU soaring is it, Owain?


-------
Jack
-------

Jack wrote:

On 1/29/04 9:00 AM, in article ,
"Owain Walters" wrote:

... accusing every comp pilot of not owning
up to incidents is just plain rubbish not to mention
insulting.

Is this a claim that the statistics based on reports of
accidents/incidents involving competition pilots are never skewed by the
actions these pilots may take to avoid being included in official
reporting?

How do they do this??

No one accused "every comp pilot", though the implication that some would
like to remain unidentified in certain reporting is inescapable and, I
suspect, quite true.

I'm sure that lot's of people involved in accidents (comps or otherwise)
would like to remain unidentified to save embarrassment.

You made the potentially libellous insinuation that "some" unnamed pilots
actually subvert the system to achieve this. Or it would be except there
is not one substantiated fact behind the innuendo.

And you are then disingenuous enough to express surprise that a competition
pilot takes offence?

--
Soar the big sky
The real name on the left is richard

If you have zero bank, and apply rudder you will begin
a
flat turn.

Wrong! UTTERLY WRONG!!!! A rudder yaws the airframe,
it does not 'turn' or 'steer' the aircraft.

Your whole problem seems to be in compairing a glider
with a boat. They may both have rudders, but they both
do totally different things.

Next time you fly in your glider, line yourself up
with a straight feature. Apply some rudder to yaw the
glider, but keep the wings level. All you will do is
continue in a straight line, sideways on. (commonly
known as a side slip)

However, the rudder does has a secondary control effect,
which introduces a roll moment due to differences in
lift between the wings. (which is why the first thing
you do is apply full opposite rudder to counteract
the rotation in a spin)

It is the ailerons that instigate a turn, the rudder
is used in a coordinated manner to 1) check the adverse
yaw (secondary effect of ailerons), and 2) to align
the airframe correctly into the airflow.

Please stop using language which inforces a belief
that the rudder is used to turn a glider in flight.
Your very action in doing so may well end up enforcing
that belief into a low airtime pilot reading these
posts and KILLING THEM!

Pete,

Unfortunately, you are wrong on this one. You can, in fact, use rudder
to change direction, much to the aerodynamicist's chagrin. It is very
inefficient, but by holding wings level and ruddering (a skid) you
create an inward pointing force caused by the fuselage (along with a
rearward componenet -- drag). It is this force that allows you to slip
by counteracting the turning force of the wing with an opposite force
from the fuselage. (Again, much to the chagrin of the aerodynamicist.)

You need rethink your model. Remember, things only go straight if in
equilibrium. An aircraft flying sideways through the air wings level
won't be in equilibrium, therefore either speed or direction must
change.

Pete Zeugma wrote in message ...
If you have zero bank, and apply rudder you will begin
a
flat turn.

Wrong! UTTERLY WRONG!!!! A rudder yaws the airframe,
it does not 'turn' or 'steer' the aircraft.

Your whole problem seems to be in compairing a glider
with a boat. They may both have rudders, but they both
do totally different things.

Next time you fly in your glider, line yourself up
with a straight feature. Apply some rudder to yaw the
glider, but keep the wings level. All you will do is
continue in a straight line, sideways on. (commonly
known as a side slip)

However, the rudder does has a secondary control effect,
which introduces a roll moment due to differences in
lift between the wings. (which is why the first thing
you do is apply full opposite rudder to counteract
the rotation in a spin)

It is the ailerons that instigate a turn, the rudder
is used in a coordinated manner to 1) check the adverse
yaw (secondary effect of ailerons), and 2) to align
the airframe correctly into the airflow.

Please stop using language which inforces a belief
that the rudder is used to turn a glider in flight.
Your very action in doing so may well end up enforcing
that belief into a low airtime pilot reading these
posts and KILLING THEM!

Getting down fast! I was getting ready to enter the
wave window at Mt. Mitchell, NC, and the cold suddenly
told me my bladder was about to let go. Full divebrakes
in a slipping turn got me on the runway in time, but
I had to jump out and run to a ditch beside the runway;
at 75 yards, the FBO toilet was just too far away.

At 20:48 29 January 2004, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Todd Pattist wrote:
A skidding turn, as you described is the opposite
of a
slipping turn. The student needs to be taught the
difference. If he is doing a slipping turn, the yaw
string
will be out of the turn, if he's skidding it will
be inside
the turn.


A+ for theory, D- for application...so I only teach
the kind of slips where both wings have the same airspeed...


I find that very odd. The slipping turn is a highly
useful
maneuver.

Refresh my memory, which doesn't seem to include this.
Under what
circumstances and glider types would this be true?
If I'm too high, I
adjust the pattern or open the airbrakes. I will slip
on final for
crosswind compensation, but why would I want make slipping
turns in the
pattern or elswhere?

--
-----
change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Nyal Williams wrote:

Getting down fast! I was getting ready to enter the
wave window at Mt. Mitchell, NC, and the cold suddenly
told me my bladder was about to let go. Full divebrakes
in a slipping turn got me on the runway in time, but
I had to jump out and run to a ditch beside the runway;
at 75 yards, the FBO toilet was just too far away.

What speed did you use? Could you have just used full spoilers and
spiralled down at 90 knots or so (or faster, if air was smooth), and had
the same descent rate?
--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

At 20:30 29 January 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:

Perhaps (slipping turns for descent are) something
I will look more at. I was never taught this, I was
never asked to
demonstrate it during a dozen check rides, and
I haven't ever seen a written reference to a slipping
turn, so I perhaps haven't thought about it much.


See the US Private & Commercial Glider Practical Test
Standards, Area of Operation IV on landings, Task R,
Slips to Landings. See also the Soaring Flight Manual
and its new FAA-published successor (whose name escapes
me).

Judy

Judy Ruprecht wrote:

See the US Private & Commercial Glider Practical Test
Standards, Area of Operation IV on landings, Task R,
Slips to Landings. See also the Soaring Flight Manual
and its new FAA-published successor (whose name escapes
me).

Judy

Can't you just reduce the throttle and then desc...

Hey WAIT A MINUTE!?!?

....there it is, big as can be, "TURNING SLIPS TO A LANDING"!

right there in the PTS. I coulda read it 200 times and never
actually seen it. This ain't in that darned airplane PTS.
And it wasn't in my training, and it wasn't on any of my
checkrides.

But now I'll practice and teach it. This is one more tool
in my toolbox.

Thanks!

At 21:00 29 January 2004, Marc Ramsey wrote:
Eric Greenwell wrote:
When I'm flying our Duo, a slipping turn from base
to final is my
standard procedure. I like to carry extra energy in
the pattern (too
much flying at Truckee), but the airbrakes aren't terribly
effective, so
I use a slipping turn to dissipate the excess energy,
and hold it
until I'm at an acceptable (shallow) approach angle.


Our Club Duo had iniffective airbrakes when we bought
it, and it also was standard practice to side-slip
on final (ie: not turning, going in a straight line).
We discovered that there was some packaging that prevented
the full travel of the airbrake. You should have your
glider checked out, as once we had our problem identified,
the airbrakes were quite good.