Turn coordinator? How dare they!

Short answer, big sky, little (and very few) bullets in cloud.

PCAS can also be used.

So can radio to ATC when appropriate.

I have read that UK and USA airspace is different, so please excuse me if I tell you what you already know.

Most glider cloud climbing is on good thermal days with isolated cu, typically cloud base 4000’ or more, and in class G which covers most of the country. On such days, in class G, almost all GA (power) keeps well below cloud. Those that go as high as the cu tend to go round them, to avoid turbulence (i.e. our lift). Some go above the clouds, where we can’t get.

One area I use for cloud climbing is near a military complex. I often call them to see if they have traffic at cloud levels near me (never have yet) before switching to glider cloud flying frequency. And I have PCAS (as well as Flarm).

There have been only 5 UK collisions between gliders and unrelated power since 1970. 3 were in gliding circuit areas, the other 2 well below cloud base in good VMC. (Both the latter were power flying into the glider – one from behind, the other from below when aerobatting.) Airprox data also show all glider/power incidents in VMC and usually well away from clouds.

There have been far more glider/glider collisions – and we all take that risk, albeit mitigating as best we can. But that is another story.

Chris N

On Feb 25, 7:50*am, "Dan Marotta" wrote:
The average VFR pilot has "178 seconds to
live" after an inadvertent trip into IMC, according to the Air Safety
Foundation.

Thread hijack!

That number (187 seconds) can be found all over the Internet and is
usually not questioned. But, where does it come from? Oh, Air Safety
Foundation. Again - where did they get it?

While, as we all know, 67.23% of all statistics are made up, this one
is not. Some digging uncovers a document titled "180-degree turn
experiment" by Leslie A. Bryan, Jesse W. Stonecipher and Karl Aron,
all from the University of Illinois.

The document describes an experiment, where non-instrument rated
pilots flew - or attempted to - in simulated instrument conditions.
All of them eventually lost control, and the average time was 178
seconds. Then, after some instruction all the test subjects managed to
"survive."

So far so good. That's consistent with what we have heard. So why am I
even writing this? Well, fortunately the document is nicely written
and tells us a lot about the experiment, choice of tests subjects and
equipment.
A couple of things stand out:

- They used a Bonanza C-35. The choice of a demanding aircraft was
intentional.
- The participants in the study were chosen to "have had a mininum of
experience in the Beechcraft Bonanza."
- They were not allowed to use IFR instruments. This is important, so
I am going to write it again: no artifical horizon, no turn
coordinator. They had "...equipment specified in Civil Air Regulation
43.30 for visual flight rules, plus a turn indicator."

So, what we have is a nice study that tells us absolutely _nothing_
about expected performance of a non-instrument rated pilot in IMC with
IFR instruments available.

Now, I am not trying to say that with AH we can all fly in clouds and
expect to come back unscratched. I am only pointing out that one piece
of information we thought was relevant, is not. The accident
statistics, on the other hand,
are what they are and remain relevant.

To anyone who considers installing AH as a "safety equipment" in a
glider, I suggest going up with an instructor in a Cessna and putting
foggles on. This, by the way, is what I did.

And do not worry. Spring is coming!

Bart

On Thursday, February 28, 2013 12:59:43 PM UTC-6, Bart wrote:
On Feb 25, 7:50*am, "Dan Marotta" wrote: The average VFR pilot has "178 seconds to live" after an inadvertent trip into IMC, according to the Air Safety Foundation. Thread hijack! That number (187 seconds) can be found all over the Internet and is usually not questioned. But, where does it come from? Oh, Air Safety Foundation. Again - where did they get it? While, as we all know, 67.23% of all statistics are made up, this one is not. Some digging uncovers a document titled "180-degree turn experiment" by Leslie A. Bryan, Jesse W. Stonecipher and Karl Aron, all from the University of Illinois. The document describes an experiment, where non-instrument rated pilots flew - or attempted to - in simulated instrument conditions. All of them eventually lost control, and the average time was 178 seconds. Then, after some instruction all the test subjects managed to "survive." So far so good. That's consistent with what we have heard. So why am I even writing this? Well, fortunately the document is nicely written and tells us a lot about the experiment, choice of tests subjects and equipment. A couple of things stand out: - They used a Bonanza C-35. The choice of a demanding aircraft was intentional. - The participants in the study were chosen to "have had a mininum of experience in the Beechcraft Bonanza." - They were not allowed to use IFR instruments. This is important, so I am going to write it again: no artifical horizon, no turn coordinator. They had "...equipment specified in Civil Air Regulation 43.30 for visual flight rules, plus a turn indicator." So, what we have is a nice study that tells us absolutely _nothing_ about expected performance of a non-instrument rated pilot in IMC with IFR instruments available. Now, I am not trying to say that with AH we can all fly in clouds and expect to come back unscratched. I am only pointing out that one piece of information we thought was relevant, is not. The accident statistics, on the other hand, are what they are and remain relevant. To anyone who considers installing AH as a "safety equipment" in a glider, I suggest going up with an instructor in a Cessna and putting foggles on. This, by the way, is what I did. And do not worry. Spring is coming! Bart

you know Bart...i bet if you and the Gapa Geezer would be a needle and ball in the PW-2 you could probably get a little further from the airport. You could run it off a venturi too since that really wouldn't add significant drag or hurt the performance any more, and then you wouldn't have to carry around a heavy battery.

On Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:03:36 PM UTC+1, Tony wrote:

you know Bart...i bet if you and the Gapa Geezer would be a needle and ball in the PW-2 you could probably get a little further from the airport. You could run it off a venturi too since that really wouldn't add significant drag or hurt the performance any more, and then you wouldn't have to carry around a heavy battery.

Naw, just carry a cat in the cockpit. Then when you get stuck in a cloud, drop the cat and follow him down - we all know cats land on their feet so if you maintain close formation you can determine attitude by the orientation of the cat.

Just make sure you're not the 10th pilot to use the cat...

Kirk
66

On Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:59:43 PM UTC+2, Bart wrote:
- They were not allowed to use IFR instruments. This is important, so

I am going to write it again: no artifical horizon, no turn

coordinator. They had "...equipment specified in Civil Air Regulation

43.30 for visual flight rules, plus a turn indicator."



So, what we have is a nice study that tells us absolutely _nothing_

about expected performance of a non-instrument rated pilot in IMC with

IFR instruments available.


Bart

Turn indicator is an IFR instrument. I bet pilot flying IMC with only turn indicator comes out of cloud pretty soon, unless trained. I see nothing wrong with the study. Sure most pilots would do a lot better with artificial horizon and GPS giving track information.

Wear a mouth guard and use the force maybe?