A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Troubling story and some questions



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old January 11th 08, 07:04 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 29
Default Troubling story and some questions

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As I posted previously the US FARs are out of date in many important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?
Ads
  #72  
Old January 11th 08, 07:41 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
John Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 256
Default Troubling story and some questions

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!
  #73  
Old January 11th 08, 10:03 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Nyal Williams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 215
Default Troubling story and some questions

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?




  #74  
Old January 11th 08, 11:28 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bob Kuykendall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,345
Default Troubling story and some questions

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.
  #75  
Old January 12th 08, 01:05 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Shawn[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43
Default Troubling story and some questions

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
  #76  
Old January 12th 08, 01:14 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Shawn[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43
Default Troubling story and some questions

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
  #77  
Old January 12th 08, 05:57 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
J a c k[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 53
Default Troubling story and some questions

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
  #78  
Old January 12th 08, 06:04 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
J a c k[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 53
Default Troubling story and some questions

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
  #79  
Old January 12th 08, 06:18 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Philip Plane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default Troubling story and some questions

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
  #80  
Old January 12th 08, 08:55 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
JJ Sinclair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 388
Default Troubling story and some questions

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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
More Troubling Planetary News!!! Michael Baldwin, Bruce[_2_] Products 1 August 24th 07 07:10 AM
More Troubling Planetary News Michael Baldwin, Bruce Products 3 January 24th 07 04:40 AM
More Troubling Planetary News Michael Baldwin, Bruce Products 2 November 20th 06 04:15 AM
More Troubling Planetary News Michael Baldwin, Bruce Products 10 November 17th 06 03:57 AM
Erosion of U.S. Industrial Base Is Troubling The Enlightenment Military Aviation 1 July 29th 03 06:57 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.