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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Hi the
I think the Vista and will log altitude, but you have no control over the timing of the recording unless it is a higher end version - it is always automatic. The Garmin76 has long tracks and has better timing control (more expensive though) - The GPS12X does not record altitudes. Magellans have much worse support for logging tracks. They are always on and you have almost no control over the track. I don't know about the Flyer - it may be better. Occasionally the altitudes on GPS can be be off and sometimes will jump around or plummet to the ground (goes to zero suddenly because of loss of signal). I think you must keep the antenna on the GPS clear of obstructions and then everything is fine. I would say that the Garmin76 would be the best for your purposes. On software - I have 3DTracer myself. It will calculate glide ratios as you can select any section of the flight track and then perform calculations on it. You can also load 3d maps from terrain DEM files. (The animations are just amazing - but off topic I suppose). It is cheaper than SeeYou and the animations are better - but less support for OLC. I also looked at CompeGPS, too - it is geared to hanggliders - But it had a few crashes on my machine and the 3D part was difficult to move around in. The hard part in 3DTrace is getting the files properly set up - the data is on the web you just must find it and calibrate the map properly. Oh yes it also has a cool flight deck that shows you everything thats occurring. The other option is to hook up a PDA to the GPS and this can be your logger - this has the difficulty that it is and extra cable, an extra set of batteries and getting the software on the PDA. But it works - I have the GPS12 with PDA software on an old Palm, with spliced together cabling. It was around $500 altogether - $200 for GPS, $200 for the PDA, $100 for the software - and you can use the PDA for its originally intended use. Any how my 2 cents Kirk Stant wrote: James, Interesting hobby! You could use a GPS logger (like a Volkslogger or Colibri), set to minimum logging interval (1 or 2 seconds). You would have to download the trace afterwards and use a program to view it. I would recommend SeeYou, but some other more terrain-oriented programs might have better terrain resolution (which would be important for you, I assume). This setup would require a small battery hooked up to the logger, but with the short flight duration it shouldn't be too big. Some of the newer Garmin handhelds also log altitude, they may be a lot cheaper and just as useful. The key is probably going to be the software you use to look at the trace. Let us know how it works out. Kirk LS6-b "66" |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Jack wrote in message ...
in article , Tom Seim at wrote on 2003/09/08 23:52: Character assignation is a definte debate loser. Perhaps you meant "...assassination", rather than "...assignation"? Yes, my fingers were a couple words behind my brain. Shows the problem with spell check. ...pull up stall-spins following the low pass [are] an essential part of the maneuver which would not have been attempted had it not been for the low pass. Thus the low pass was directly contributory to the accident. I think you may have to go further and tell us how you define "low pass". Are pull ups from three feet more dangerous than pullups from ten feet, or one hundred feet, or three hundred? And by how much, statistically speaking? Now you are in the 'bring me a rock' mode. You are no more interested in additional stats than you are in changing your mind on the matter. The maneuver is an inherently high-risk one with little margin for error. Blasting thru a busy GA airport such as the one where I fly out of with piston A/C, turbine A/C, ultra-lights and helicopters is using questionable judgment. Not all pilots are on the correct frequency or have their squelch set properly. Some don't have radios at all. None will be expecting this maneuver. Some maneuvers are inherently more dangerous than others (i.e. ridge soaring and landings). Their accident rate per flight hour WILL be higher, but you don't see it referenced. It gets lumped into the overall rate. All of us will be doing one landing for each flight; few will be doing a low pass. ...training...for high speed low passes...isn't part of the practical test standards and it certainly wasn't a part of my training. Then please don't do them. Nor should you presume to decide who is qualified to do them and who is not, nor how much risk exposure is involved. Judgment is the integration of training and experience. Let the record speak for itself; this maneuver is, deservedly, a high risk one. The record merely tells us that some glider pilots have performed the low pass maneuver poorly. You have no idea how many do it every day with success and even aplomb. Not many. I seldom see it performed. Most of them were done at contests until the rules were changed over concern about safety. I personally have done them at contests. And I admit it; they were fun! With the new tasks which had gliders coming in to the finish line from any direction, even though we all crossed the finish line in the same direction, heightened the risk substantially. It is a failing of our government-approved so-called system of training which refuses to even acknowledge, let alone prepare pilots for, any number of maneuvers which a competent pilot should have in his repertoire. No wonder they occasionally do them poorly. The current program doesn't even address cross country soaring. It basically teaches gliding, not soaring. Yet much of the glider hours flown are cross country. The Feds will change training requirements when they see unusually high accident rates, which is probably just as well because we would have a real problem getting instructors. Let me be clear about one thing: the low pass maneuver is legal except where prohibited by local A/P rules (assuming you don't violate some other rule in the process). I have no intention of petitioning the FAA otherwise (have you read the posts by the club that is having major difficulties with the A/P management?). I was expressing my opinion to which I am entitled, and just think that low time pilots should not be attempting it. Now, the bird man thing is another story. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, but I still don't see it. Two accidents in 20
years doesn't strike me as a top ten safety issue. Certainly finding better ways to train for more advanced forms of soaring (cross country, racing, acro, etc.) and exercising good judgement generally are motherhood issues for the sport. I think it is possible to construct worst case scenarios for any phase of flight and thinking about these scenarios may prove instructive for the development of flying judgement -- after all judgement is generally born out of learning from experience. If you construct a low pass scenario of gliders converging from different directions on a busy, mixed-use airport without proper radio procedures or situational awareness, crossing active runways without looking, squeezing between buildings and frightening the children it starts to sound reckless. But in my view that is a debating canard. I can make a simple pattern tow sound dangerous with similar 'scenario-buildi ng' just by adding in high crosswinds, local thunderstorms, poor preflight procedures... you get the picture. If there are facts about actual accidents (Tom's search turned up two that were of questionable applicability since I don't think we're talking about attempting loops at low altitude as a standard procedure), or facts about near misses where another aircraft was forced to take emergency evasive action, then maybe there can be a productive discussion about what to do to improve safety. But the facts don't seem to bear this out. Tom, I don't dispute your general points about judgement and training, I just think we need to be careful about characterizing certain types of flying as inherently risky if the real point is reckless or thoughtless flying in any phase of flight is potentially dangerous. The first thought tends to lead to rules and regulations about specific flight procedures (e.g. no low-passes, no more than one glider in a thermal, no ridge soaring, no landings [okay that might be a tough one to implement]), but if the real issue is poor judgement generally, than all the rules do is take the fun out of flying and give some people a false sense of security. Some of the clubs I've belonged to that have been the most 'rule happy' actually have poorer safety records (no I don't have statistics). I'd hate to distract people away from the real safety issues, which (according to the statistics) have to do with maintaining proper control of the aircraft and adequate flying speed/coordination. Hope these thoughts are viewed as constructive - it's how they are intended. 9B At 01:54 10 September 2003, Tom Seim wrote: Jack wrote in message news:... in article , Tom Seim at wrote on 2003/09/08 23:52: Character assignation is a definte debate loser. Perhaps you meant '...assassination', rather than '...assignation'? Yes, my fingers were a couple words behind my brain. Shows the problem with spell check. ...pull up stall-spins following the low pass [are] an essential part of the maneuver which would not have been attempted had it not been for the low pass. Thus the low pass was directly contributory to the accident. I think you may have to go further and tell us how you define 'low pass'. Are pull ups from three feet more dangerous than pullups from ten feet, or one hundred feet, or three hundred? And by how much, statistically speaking? Now you are in the 'bring me a rock' mode. You are no more interested in additional stats than you are in changing your mind on the matter. The maneuver is an inherently high-risk one with little margin for error. Blasting thru a busy GA airport such as the one where I fly out of with piston A/C, turbine A/C, ultra-lights and helicopters is using questionable judgment. Not all pilots are on the correct frequency or have their squelch set properly. Some don't have radios at all. None will be expecting this maneuver. Some maneuvers are inherently more dangerous than others (i.e. ridge soaring and landings). Their accident rate per flight hour WILL be higher, but you don't see it referenced. It gets lumped into the overall rate. All of us will be doing one landing for each flight; few will be doing a low pass. ...training...for high speed low passes...isn't part of the practical test standards and it certainly wasn't a part of my training. Then please don't do them. Nor should you presume to decide who is qualified to do them and who is not, nor how much risk exposure is involved. Judgment is the integration of training and experience. Let the record speak for itself; this maneuver is, deservedly, a high risk one. The record merely tells us that some glider pilots have performed the low pass maneuver poorly. You have no idea how many do it every day with success and even aplomb. Not many. I seldom see it performed. Most of them were done at contests until the rules were changed over concern about safety. I personally have done them at contests. And I admit it; they were fun! With the new tasks which had gliders coming in to the finish line from any direction, even though we all crossed the finish line in the same direction, heightened the risk substantially. It is a failing of our government-approved so-called system of training which refuses to even acknowledge, let alone prepare pilots for, any number of maneuvers which a competent pilot should have in his repertoire. No wonder they occasionally do them poorly. The current program doesn't even address cross country soaring. It basically teaches gliding, not soaring. Yet much of the glider hours flown are cross country. The Feds will change training requirements when they see unusually high accident rates, which is probably just as well because we would have a real problem getting instructors. Let me be clear about one thing: the low pass maneuver is legal except where prohibited by local A/P rules (assuming you don't violate some other rule in the process). I have no intention of petitioning the FAA otherwise (have you read the posts by the club that is having major difficulties with the A/P management?). I was expressing my opinion to which I am entitled, and just think that low time pilots should not be attempting it. Now, the bird man thing is another story. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message .. . In article , says... The scary low passes I've seen were almost all done with too little speed, which means when the pilot pulls up, he is still low, making a pattern (any kind of pattern) to the landing more difficult. -- !Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply directly Eric Greenwell Richland, WA (USA) A "rule of thumb" I've used is 1 knot = about 9 feet. So if I start the pull-up at 110 knots and push over to level for the pattern at about 60 knots, I'll be around 450 feet plus whatever altitude the low pass was flown at. I've done a few low passes at Napa, CA, a towered airport. I never ask when there's other pattern traffic and so far the tower has always cleared me for the low pass. Disclaimer: the "formula" above isn't mine, don't know where I read it, it's probably inaccurate, and don't try it at home . . . or in a glider for that matter and try it at altitude first. -- bumper "Dare to be different . . . circle in sink." to reply, the last half is right to left --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.514 / Virus Database: 312 - Release Date: 9/1/2003 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
The rule I use is simple
At ground level! 70knots to 90 knots I have enough energy for a 180degree turn 90 knots + I have energy for 360 degree turn. THESE ARE ABSOLUTE MINIMUMS. I add 10-20knots to avoid a case of "brown adrenalin" These figures are calculated on Cirrus,Libelle,Asw19 type aircraft so later generation gliders gain on on these figures I REPEAT I ADD 10-20 KNOTS FOR SAFETY These figures were calculated about by a well known pilot 15-20 years whose name I cannot recall. gary "John Morgan" wrote in message ... "Eric Greenwell" wrote in message .. . In article , says... The scary low passes I've seen were almost all done with too little speed, which means when the pilot pulls up, he is still low, making a pattern (any kind of pattern) to the landing more difficult. -- !Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply directly Eric Greenwell Richland, WA (USA) A "rule of thumb" I've used is 1 knot = about 9 feet. So if I start the pull-up at 110 knots and push over to level for the pattern at about 60 knots, I'll be around 450 feet plus whatever altitude the low pass was flown at. I've done a few low passes at Napa, CA, a towered airport. I never ask when there's other pattern traffic and so far the tower has always cleared me for the low pass. Disclaimer: the "formula" above isn't mine, don't know where I read it, it's probably inaccurate, and don't try it at home . . . or in a glider for that matter and try it at altitude first. -- bumper "Dare to be different . . . circle in sink." to reply, the last half is right to left --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.514 / Virus Database: 312 - Release Date: 9/1/2003 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Andy Blackburn wrote in message ...
Tom, I took a look at your references -- by N#. The first and third appear to be low passes - though in both cases they were in the context of doing low-altitude aerobatics, rather than traditional 'contest finish' maneuvers, but I'll let them pass. The reports on the second and fourth had no references to low, fast passes. The BG-12 lost a wing at 2000' and the Blanik was just high on approach. (Excerpts from the accident reports attached). Your formula for estimating accident rate by phase of flight seems ok, but you have to be careful about making conclusions from VERY low rates of occurence (i.e. one every ten years). Also, I would disagree with your estimate of 1,000 operations for high-speed passes in the US in a year. The Arizona Soaring Association weekend contest series generates over 200 contest finishes in a summer - and that's just one soaring site. Add all the other sites in the US, plus sanctioned contests and you get a much bigger number. Finally, you used 9 years for the time period, but your examples spanned 19 years (1984 to present). Given the low rate of occurence, I emphasize that calculating a rate is likely to be misleading. The rates associated with landing phase would seem to be higher, since there we have several per year. In any event, I remain unconvinced that making contest finishes is inherently dangerous, particularly now that the evidence in favor of the argument has been presented. Those two accidents were mostly caused by a badly botched attempt at a hihg-speed low pass. The pilot of the BG-12 exceeded Vne; why did he do that entering the pattern? The only ligit explanation, in my mind, is that he was starting a low pass and didn't pay attention to airspeed. The other one was very curious. They described a high pass, yet he hit A/C on the ground! These two statements are completely inconsistent: WITNESSES REPORTED THAT THE ACFT APPEARED TO BE TOO HIGH, TOO FAST, AND IN A CRAB AS IT APPROACHED THE RWY. OVER THE RWY THE GLIDER WAS OBSERVED TO ROLL INTO A RIGHT TURN AS THE NOSE CAME UP. SHORTLY THEREAFTER THE RIGHT WING STRUCK 3 PARKED ACFT AND COLLIDED WITH THE TERRAIN. I concluded that the glider wasn't as high as the witnesses thought (surprise!) and that he was doing a show off low pass for his passenger (surprise again). The accident rate calculation is illustrative, giving an order of magnitude to the situation. You can adjust the calculation by assigning an educated probability to the accident falling in this category; it doesn't change things materially. If you compare this, small, category to all fatal accidents it is totally out of proportion by any measure. Your attitude from the outset has been "show me!". I've been in this sport a long time (over 20 years), and that's a red flag attitude in my book. I'm sure you've seen pilots who over estimate their capabilities, given your resume. I've grown more conservative in my old age (old pilots vs bold pilots). I say to you, show me how it is safe, considering ALL conditions, such as pilot capabilities and surroundings (i.e. glider only A/P vs GA A/P). The bottom line is: is it worth it? Are you going to assume an avoidable risk vs a quick thrill? My message isn't to you guys (you're already to emotionally invested in proving me wrong), its to low time pilots who are wondering what's this all about. Do I really have to explain what is wrong with showing off? Are you guys so thick skulled as to not see a problem with that kind of attitude? If so I hope I don't see your name on an NTSB report. I have said it befo I would rather have someone ****ed off at me for voicing my oppinion than to stand silent and watch them kill themselves. Personally, given your background I am surprised at your attitude. I will consider my comments a complete success if I have thrown a note of caution into just a single pilot, or pilot to be, that has followed this exchange. BTW: Go for the glass! |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
best glide speed of a warrior | d&tm | Piloting | 25 | December 18th 04 04:11 PM |
US kill loss ratio versus Russian pilots in Korean War? | Rats | Military Aviation | 21 | January 26th 04 08:56 AM |
Angle of climb at Vx and glide angle when "overweight": five questions | Koopas Ly | Piloting | 16 | November 29th 03 10:01 PM |
Testing your glide. Are people doing this? | Montblack | Piloting | 116 | November 1st 03 12:56 AM |
A Waikerie slip up? | Vassilios Mazis | Soaring | 4 | July 28th 03 11:34 PM |