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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting problem. I would suggest that the primary danger faced by
a competent pilot isn't a spin, but a midair collision. One can choose to increase speed near the ground. However, a low save requires extra attention to airspeed control, coordination, and thermal centering. Myopic focus on a thermal in the high density traffic of a landing pattern is inappropriate. Pilots entering the pattern depend on others already in it to act predictably. And once in the pattern, special attention has to be given to traffic aviodance, since gliderports (and especially mixed traffic airports) can produce unusual conflicts under the best of conditions. I assume your club has a safety officer. If a pilot chooses to thermal in the pattern, that pilot needs talking too. Part of the discussion might include the addition of variables during low altitude saves and their effect on maintaining appropriate safety margins, but the primary focus should be on the poor judgement that led a pilot to operate unpredictably (and thereby unsafely) in the landing pattern, where he may be a danger to others as well as himself. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Ted Wagner wrote:
Thanks Shawn, I'll take a look. Btw, so say "It's *safe* to say everyone should land (blah blah blah)" is, well, stating the obvious (kinda like saying "It's safe to stay on the ground"). The pertinent question is whether it was *unsafe* for me to continue the turn in the precise circumstances in which I found myself. I remain open to the possibility that it was not, but in the same spirit, being over tiger country out of reach of landable points is questionably unsafe, yet I hear regularly of pilots doing this as a matter of routine, especially in contests, and if I continue flying contests long enough (and I hope to be doing them for many years), I will have to take that step many times myself. I want to err on the side of safety, but at the same time, I want to be reasonable and competitive. Was it unsafe? No, not that time. Here you are! Definitely risky though. Thermalling at low altitude isn't like thermalling aloft. Thermals are less consolidated and much smaller in area. Wind shear due to ground features alters the way thermals behave relative to higher up on the same day, in the same wind. Perspective is different as well. The ground appears to disappear under the lower wing near the ground (moving front to back), whereas at altitude it appears from under the lower wing. If you try to "fix" this picture automatically, you'll keep finding yourself in a skidding turn every time you scan past the yaw string. Do most pilots routinely fly over tiger country out of glide of anywhere landable? I think people talk it up more than they do it. Plus, being at 19,000 feet (by GPS) over Nevada desert with cloud streets as far as the eye can see is a different judgment call than being 2000 feet over a Louisiana swamp with a wisp of a cloud dome up ahead. The way I'll keep looking at it, is how I was trained. Once I commit to landing, I'll land. And yes, I can imagine exceptions, but they would involve the landing option being very very bad anyway (e.g. trees). Much better not to get into such a situation in the first place. FWIW its very good you're asking these questions now, and not the next time you're in lift on downwind. Shawn |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Circling at 400ft while being able to land anywhere doesn't mean unsafe
operations by definition. I frequently start circling over a ridge at less than half of this altitude. But not always. Everything depends on experience (with that glider), current training level (with that glider), personal daily fitness, wind conditions and lift conditions. And you have to put the question "is it safe" every single time - but then, this does hold for every manoeuvre. You just have to accept that sometimes the answer to this question is "no". -- Bert Willing ASW20 "TW" "scurry" a écrit dans le message de ... Was it unsafe? No, not that time. Here you are! Definitely risky though. Thermalling at low altitude isn't like thermalling aloft. Thermals are less consolidated and much smaller in area. Wind shear due to ground features alters the way thermals behave relative to higher up on the same day, in the same wind. Perspective is different as well. The ground appears to disappear under the lower wing near the ground (moving front to back), whereas at altitude it appears from under the lower wing. If you try to "fix" this picture automatically, you'll keep finding yourself in a skidding turn every time you scan past the yaw string. Do most pilots routinely fly over tiger country out of glide of anywhere landable? I think people talk it up more than they do it. Plus, being at 19,000 feet (by GPS) over Nevada desert with cloud streets as far as the eye can see is a different judgment call than being 2000 feet over a Louisiana swamp with a wisp of a cloud dome up ahead. The way I'll keep looking at it, is how I was trained. Once I commit to landing, I'll land. And yes, I can imagine exceptions, but they would involve the landing option being very very bad anyway (e.g. trees). Much better not to get into such a situation in the first place. FWIW its very good you're asking these questions now, and not the next time you're in lift on downwind. Shawn |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:412a9f4a$1@darkstar...
Ted Wagner wrote: yaw string straight. We've had this discussion on RAS before. I'm still gonna say that yaw string straight doesn't prevent a spin entry. Spins are when you're stalled and one wing is more stalled than the other. One wing is more stalled than the other if one wing has less AOA/more airspeed than the other. With the yawstring straight, this is still true in a steep bank, especially with long wings. It's also true if you're in a slip and then with a punchy foot coarsely correct it to center. The steeper the bank, the higher the stall speed AND the greater the difference in wing speeds, even with a straight yaw string. When I teach rope breaks, I do them at 300 ft and 30-45 degrees of bank, and best L/D for that bank angle. http://www.stolaf.edu/people/hansonr/soaring/spd2fly/ is a start. I also caution against super rapid roll rates and coarse use of rudder. I'm open to thoughts on this. I didn't do the math to see how MUCH the factor affects spins (somebody else did and came up with 3 degrees diff or so for 50 deg and 18m wings), but it sure surprised me. Now when I do spins in the L-13, I do them from string centered flight, and sure enough it always spins in the direction of the steep bank, and in a hurry too... P.S. Of course this assumes the rigging is right. If flaps are lower on one side than the other, hey man, there's yet another factor... I disagree with your conclusion about steep bank angles. It is usually a lot harder to spin from a steep turn, and a lot easier to recover from an incipient spin, for a simple reason (see Piggott for more details): a properly flown steep turn is flown at a significantly higher speed, and the elevator is limited, making it harder to reach stalling angle of attack, and much easier to reduce the angle of attack if needed due to the higher speed. You mention in an earlier post about making shallow, fast turns during a low save. Why shallow? If the thermal is narrow, you usually need to be steep (and fast) to stay in the (probably a bit turbulent) core. A shallow turn is asking for the classic base-to-final spin entry, unless you fly so fast that any climb is more luck than skill! Methinks your power background is showing (all those shallow turns!). Even though I also have a power past going way back, I now find my glider bias showing when I fly a stinkpot; I find myself whipping into nice 45 to 60 degree banks, scaring the daylights out of my power-only friends... Kirk |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Ted Wagner wrote:
Thanks Shawn, I'll take a look. Btw, so say "It's *safe* to say everyone should land (blah blah blah)" is, well, stating the obvious (kinda like saying "It's safe to stay on the ground"). The pertinent question is whether it was *unsafe* for me to continue the turn in the precise circumstances in which I found myself. I remain open to the possibility that it was not, but in the same spirit, being over tiger country out of reach of landable points is questionably unsafe, yet I hear regularly of pilots doing this as a matter of routine, especially in contests, We must know entirely different groups of pilots, because I sure don't hear pilots talking about this, unless it starts out "Boy, did I screw up today...". The story often ends with "... so I ended up ground looping (or "scaring myself sh--less", "hitting the fence", "breaking the tail", etc)". and if I continue flying contests long enough (and I hope to be doing them for many years), I will have to take that step many times myself. No, you certainly don't have to. Pilot's choice, you know. It some areas in some conditions, the lift can be so reliable that you can actually count on it, but if done regularly, you will find the times when you misjudge the weather. I want to err on the side of safety, but at the same time, I want to be reasonable and competitive. Take a look at the flight traces from the top pilots. See if they are really taking these chances. The ones I've flown with didn't seem to take these kinds of chances. I think the philosophy for many of them is "there is always another day and another contest, and if you break your glider, you won't even win this day or this contest". -- Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
scurry wrote:
wrote: scurry wrote: Ridge flying is practised currently *much* closer to the ridge than that, in fact so close than not touching some tree is the real problem. Carl Herold has stated he no longer does ridge soaring because he finds it too dangerous. On the other hand, he has so many other forms of lift available in the Sierras, I suspect this isn't a problem If you land with pine needles in your ailerons, you are too close... -- ------------+ Mark Boyd Avenal, California, USA |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
scurry wrote:
Ted Wagner wrote: Thanks Shawn, I'll take a look. Was it unsafe? No, not that time. Here you are! Definitely risky though. Thermalling at low altitude isn't like thermalling aloft. Thermals are less consolidated and much smaller in area. Wind shear due to ground features alters the way thermals behave relative to higher up on the same day, in the same wind. Perspective is different as well. The ground appears to disappear under the lower wing near the ground (moving front to back), whereas at altitude it appears from under the lower wing. If you try to "fix" this picture automatically, you'll keep finding yourself in a skidding turn every time you scan past the yaw string. An excellent point. I've found myself more than once skidding because of wind creating an illusion close to the ground. The only way I've found to counter it is being aware of the wind, and using slow roll rates and shallow banks close to the ground (so I don't need much rudder anyway). -- ------------+ Mark Boyd Avenal, California, USA |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Mark James Boyd wrote:
An excellent point. I've found myself more than once skidding because of wind creating an illusion close to the ground. The only way I've found to counter it is being aware of the wind, and using slow roll rates and shallow banks close to the ground (so I don't need much rudder anyway). *Listen* to what Kirk (and others) have said about this. The last thing you want to do when thermalling down low is use a shallow bank angle. It is just too easy to lose track of what you are doing, and end up a bit too slow in a skidding turn. It is far safer to be in a properly coordinated turn with a 40 to 50 degree bank angle. Every glider I've ever flown gives a much better warning of impending departure in a tight turn, plus the visual (nose above horizon) and physical (G forces slacking off) cues are much more pronounced. Marc |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
I fly with the same group as you Ted and I wonder where you get the idea
that it is "routine" to fly with no landing options, even in hardcore competition. I don't believe this to be the case and I agree with Eric. I have found that when a pilot is relating a story of some scary situation they got themselves into and I ask them where they would have landed, 99% of the time they have an answer. Barb |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
SR22 Spin Recovery | gwengler | Piloting | 9 | September 24th 04 07:31 AM |
Spin Training | JJ Sinclair | Soaring | 6 | February 16th 04 04:49 PM |
Cessna 150 Price Outlook | Charles Talleyrand | Owning | 80 | October 16th 03 02:18 PM |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Piloting | 25 | September 11th 03 01:27 PM |