Wills Wing
Flytec

Oz Report

Volume 7, Number 110
11 pm, Wednesday, April 23 2003

https://OzReport.com
"Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore."

Will fly for subscriptions

Wed, Apr 23 2003, 8:00:00 pm GMT

Christof Kratzner|Oz Report

Oz Report readers who helped out on Wednesday: Felix and Christof ($50) and Roland Whitsitt.

You can see how to send in $10 for a yearly subscription/donation to the Oz Report below.

Discuss "Will fly for subscriptions" at the Oz Report forum   link»

to Table of Contentsto next topic The 2003 Wallaby Open

Wed, Apr 23 2003, 4:00:01 pm EDT

Alessandro "Alex" Ploner|Alex Ploner|battens|Betinho Schmitz|Brett Hazlett|Bruce Barmakian|Christian Ciech|David Chaumet|Davis Straub|death|gaggle|GPS|Kraig Coomber|Leonardo Dabbur|Mike Barber|news|Swift|Wallaby Open 2003

http://www.wallaby.com/wallabyopen/2003/

Okay, the lead – Manfred doesn’t get to goal once again.  What is the sound of Manfred not making goal?  When is a nonevent news?  Twice in two days.  Yesterday he dropped to second place below Oleg.  Today he tumbles further.

As I was breaking down my glider I saw that Manfred was the passenger in the car coming to pick up Alex and Christian at goal.  Wow!  Things are really open for someone else to win this meet.

Okay, if it hadn’t been for that the lead would have been the mid air.  Out on course, in the air, in a thick gaggle, a glider landed on top of Leonardo Dabbur’s flex wing.  He apparently bent some of the root battens, as Leonardo had trouble flying the glider after that.  Finally he decided to land.  We don’t know at the moment who the other pilot was.

But, what about the death gaggle just outside the start window?  We had a 20 mile radius entry start window today centered on the first turnpoint.  Do you think this would at least spread out the pilots?  Well the lift was weak and with 80 pilots in the same or a nearby thermal it was almost impossible to stay in any “core.”

There was no separate start circle radius or whatever for the various classes, so that didn’t help at all.  It was truly unbelievably ridiculous.  I came very close to being hit or hitting (who knows which is which) three gliders.  This was a common experience.

At first we were able to climb up over 3,500’ but as more and more pilots got into the air, it became more and more difficult to stay in the lift without endangering yourself and others.  So we slowly began to sink as this chart shows (the red vertical line is when I leave to go on course) down to 2,300’. The last two humps before the red line are when I go inside the start circle (which in this case means I go out on course) to get away from the gaggles, and then I go back outside the start circle (to start) and only a few pilots are in the gaggle with me.

This graphic displays the hour that I spent in flight before I took the last start time at 2:45 PM:

I spent 70 percent of the hour turning and the average rate of climb was 90 fpm. Everyone else was in the same situation, trying to stay up in what seemed like weak lift because none of us could fly in the core.

Some went on course when the death gaggle just became too much.  They became the rabbits for us to chase.  Oleg went at 2:30 to get out of the death gaggle.  I went with him, but went back to get the 2:45 clock.

Alex Ploner, Christian Ciech, David Chaumet, and Bruce Barmakian were high at 2:45 at the start circle.  Kraig Coomber and Brett Hazlett left at 2:45 but were able to catch the 2:30 guys as they started high and raced to the Bok Tower where the earlier guys (Oleg, Antoine, Curt, Johnny, Carlos, and Betinho) were low.

What task you ask?

Down to Lake Wales, to a new turnpoint to the south of Bok Tower to keep us in GPS coverage, southwest to Larry to keep us near the orange groves and pasture lands and away from the swamps, and then down highway seventeen to Wauchula airport.  With the north-northwest wind predicted to be about 10 mph today, and with moderate lift and no clouds, we were worried about being able to get off a reasonable task.

And talk about anxiety.  The task committee is built to enhance anxiety.  Mike Barber does not want to call a task until two minutes before the first pilot launches if then.  There are so many different personalities going in so many different directions on the task committee that I just keep my mouth shut.  They (we) call three task today before at the last minute we decide on the medium task (I want the long one).

So we are gliding south over the orange groves toward Lake Wales and thankfully there are plenty of folks out in front to show us the lift.  Nice to have friends when there aren’t any clouds.  My gaggle finds some good lift just northwest of the Bok Tower and get the highest that we are going to get at 4,300’.

It’s a short run to the turnpoint in Lake Wales and then we can see the lead gaggle to the west-southwest.  Knowing that there is some lift ahead is a great benefit as we can pass up weak lift and go for the good stuff.  Just before the turnpoint at Larry we have to crawl up from 1,600’, but that will be enough to get us to 4,100’ and high enough to pick and choose before we go on glide from 10 miles out at 4,000’.

I have a Swift way below and in front of me on final glide also.  I figure that he is going to make it, so all I’ve got to do is keep him below me. I’m actually able to beat him to goal.

Plenty of pilots make it into goal.

In order:

Alex Ploner 14:45 16:38:12 1st rigid
David Chaumet 14:45 16:42:19
Christian Ciech 14:45 16:42:35
Burce Barmakian 14:45 16:43:45
Kraig Coomber 14:45 16:47:02 1st flex
Brett Hazlett 14:45 16:47:02
Antoine 14:30 16:47:18
Oleg 14:30 16:47:26
Curt, Jon 14:30 16:47:30
Carlos, Betinho 14:30 16:47:30
Heiner Beisel ? 16:51:08
Davis Straub 14:45 16:55:51

You might also try to find results at: http://www.elltel.net/peterandlinda/Wallaby_Open_2003/2003_Wallaby_Main.htm

Discuss "The 2003 Wallaby Open" at the Oz Report forum   link»

to Table of Contentsto next topic FAA, Lookout and their Tugs

Wed, Apr 23 2003, 4:00:02 pm EDT

aerotow|Bill Bryden|EAA|FAA|flight park|instruction|Jayne DePanfilis|Lee Gardner|Lookout Mountain Flight Park|Orlando Stephenson|parachute|sport|Sport Pilot|Sue Bunner|survival|tow|towing|USHGA

Jayne DePanfilis «jayne» writes:

The recent situation at Lookout Mountain Flight Park regarding the suspension of aerotow operations by an FAA field inspector from Atlanta helped to focus the FAA on the need to either issue a new Towing Exemption to the USHGA or to revise the current Towing Exemption held by the USHGA to allow for the use of heavier ultralights for the purpose of aerotow launching hang gliders.

The FAA understands the importance of aerotow instruction/flying for the survival and growth of our sport.  The FAA indicated a desire to help the USHGA address the need to revise the Towing Exemption when USHGA representatives first met with them at the Spring BOD meeting in Ontario, California in February of 2002 to discuss Sport Pilot initiatives.  The USHGA Sport Pilot Task Force, members of the Executive Committee, and Sue Gardner continued to address the need for an increased weight limit for the towing vehicles at the Fall USHGA BOD meeting held in Orlando last October.

The issue of primary importance during these discussions was the (excess) weight of the ultralights that are in use at flight parks for the safer conduct of aerotow operations.  The FAA understands implicitly that the Bailey Moyes Dragon Fly Ultralights currently in use at LMFP is essential to most aerotow flight park operations.  They know that the Dragon Fly has recently been certificated in Germany.  They know that the USHGA considers it to be a "standard" for the implementation of safer aerotowing operations.  The USHGA Sport Pilot Task Force provided the FAA with documentation supporting the use of these ultralights as early as the spring of 2002. This valuable information did not fall on deaf ears.  The USHGA has been working very closely with Sue Gardner for more than one year now on these matters.

On Monday of this week I spoke directly with Sue Gardner, the FAA's Program Manager and Technical Expert for Sport Pilot, and I explained the situation at LMFP to her in great detail.  Sue indicated to me that she intends to immediately move forward with the USHGA's request to increase the weight limit of the ultralight vehicles used to aerotow launch hang gliders.  The request to increase the weight limit of the ultralights that are used to tow hang gliders was formally submitted to the FAA by me in December of last year.  The request was drafted by Bill Bryden.  The situation at Lookout these past two weeks has shown Sue that the USHGA needs "immediate relief" from the FAA regarding the need to increase the weight limits of these ultralights so they can be used without question to aerotow hang gliders.

It is my hope that the revision to the USHGA's current Towing Exemption can be made within the next two or three weeks.  The current weight limit for these aircraft is 254 pounds.  Discussions are currently underway to increase the weight limit to 496 pounds plus allowances for (more) weight similar to those that are provided to ultralights operating now under the EAA, USUA, or ASC exemption for two-place training in an ultralight.  The two-place towing exemption maintained by the EAA, USUA and ASC includes allowances for a parachute system, floats, etc.  Bill Bryden is currently negotiating this new weight limit with the FAA on behalf of the USHGA.

The USHGA knows that Sue Gardner is a friend to recreational aviators and while the USHGA recently recognized her with an exemplary service award, I would like to publicly thank her once again for understanding what the USHGA needs most from the FAA to ensure that we will be able to continue to conduct flight park operations, aerotow operations, in the safer manner to which we have become accustomed.

Discuss "FAA, Lookout and their Tugs" at the Oz Report forum   link»

to Table of Contentsto next topic Mike and Pete’s Record

Wed, Apr 23 2003, 4:00:03 pm EDT

CIVL|FAI|record|USHGA|wheels

A. W. Greenfield «awgreenfield» writes:

Congratulations!  You will be pleased to know that FAI has approved your joint record for "Straight Distance to a Declared Goal," set on June 20, 2002. We were notified yesterday of the decision by a representative of the CIVL bureau.

Your appeal has brought to light the shortcomings of Section 7 of the Sporting Code.  As a result, CIVL has promised to amend the code by moving all the rules applicable to records into a single chapter.  This will certainly be an improvement, but simply reorganizing the information would not have changed anything in your particular case.  I would ask that you provide CIVL (through USHGA) with recommended changes to the Code that might provide clarification for those attempting records in the future.  Given your practical experience, I am certain that your recommendations would be most helpful.

Thank you for your patience during this long process.  The wheels don't always turn as quickly as we'd like, but I believe they are turning fairly.

Again, congratulations on these two spectacular flights!

Discuss "Mike and Pete’s Record" at the Oz Report forum   link»

to Table of Contentsto next topic Zwecki

Wed, Apr 23 2003, 4:00:04 pm EDT

electric|Josef "Zwecki" Zweckmayr|Oz Report|Thomas "Tom/Tomas" Weissenberger

Thomas Weissenberger «tomtom» writes:

Two weeks ago I and the other Austrian pilots celebrated Zwecki´s birthday.  We all met at his home which is in a small village in a little valley in the middle of nowhere.  I would call it the Austrian Tigerland.

Zwecki is now back home from the rehabilitation center in the lavish care of his parents and his girl friend.  They renovated his house to make it suitable for him to move in his electric wheel-chair.  He is still sitting in the chair, but his mind is totally clear and full of optimism!  The most significant thing in my eyes is that he still thinks and talks with us about flying.  He is listening curiously to hang gliding stories, he talks with us about flying and he takes part at some of the Austrian pilot meetings.

He might be away from the comp scene physically but he is watching it fully interested.  Next week end we have a comp in Austria where he will be involved into the task setting and briefing.  With his left hand he can use the computer and he is also reading the Oz Report!

I am writing this to let everybody know about Zwecki´s whereabouts and that he is happy about any support of all the pilots who know him!

Zwecki is now 34 years old.  Birthday greetings to: «j.zwecki»

His next goal is to fly sailplanes.  See you in goal Zwecki!

Discuss "Zwecki" at the Oz Report forum   link»

to Table of Contentsto next topic Wires

Wed, Apr 23 2003, 4:00:05 pm EDT

CIVL|competition|Gerolf Heinrichs|landing|parachute|safety|spin|Steve Kroop

Gerolf Heinrichs «gerolfontour» writes:

I very much acknowledge your concerns about landing injuries where front/back wires come into play.  However, I fear you blame the wrong suspect here - to my understanding cutting is not a problem of bare steel.

You are certainly not the only one under this delusion - the evidences of these accidents just look so striking.  Actually a majority of pilots is under the belief that the sole purpose of this coating is to protect one from getting cut with it. Many others do think, it's meant for better protection against corrosion.  But, neither one is the case!  Talking to cable manufacturers, you will find out, there actually is only one reason why they coat their cables: It's to protect the wire itself from kink damage.  That's all it really is!

One could now argue that maybe as an unexpected spin-off the coating still could provide additional protection for the pilot's skin.  To answer this question there really is only one way to find out - make a more scientific approach and do a cutting experiment.

This experiment, in fact, has already been performed several times a while ago, but has never been properly published I suppose and thus it seems the results have been forgotten.  All you need really is a chunk of meat, preferably some pork (as they say it's consistence comes closest to human skin/flesh) and a big enough saw, where you can replace the blade by different strings of wire.  Here are the samples you should test:

(i) 1x19, 1.9mm steel cable, without coating, as currently in use on many competition gliders.  This wire has very little texture, which corresponds to the equivalent of "teeth" of the "saw-blade", as the experiment will turn out: breaking load ~ 420kp

(ii) 1x19, 2.5mm steel cable, without coating, just thicker making: breaking load ~ 600kp

(iii) 7x7, 2.5mm steel cable, coated (steel portion = 2.0mm), a more flexible cable with a fair bit of texture due to it's weaving : breaking load ~ 400 kp

(iv) 7x7, 2.0mm steel cable, without coating, currently in use on many competition gliders, same drag as (i): breaking load ~400 kp

(v) 7x7, 2.0mm steel cable, coated (steel portion = 1.6mm), same cable, but less steel core, in order to match the drag value of cable (i) : breaking load ~ 280 kp

I presume, Steve, you are rather skeptical to my arguments and conclusions so you will want to perform this experiment by yourself.  For those less suspicious or (persistent ;-) I give the results here right away: They are actually rather sobering: The plastic coated cables cut skin and flesh just as nice, if not better than bare wire.  The reason may lay in the higher skin friction the plastic provides, which you can tell by the burn marks of the skin.  Nevertheless, it quickly becomes apparent that the significant parameters for cutting are not so much the "blade"-material properties itself, but it's geometry: the radius of the blade's edge (= cable radius) and the size of the blades teeth (= texture of cable).

Thus, the simple equation is: the bigger the diameter of the cables, the better your chances to not cut your skin.  The less texture your cable has, the better your chances again.  Thinking about it for a little while, we probably would have guessed that anyway, wouldn't we?

The result helps to explain why cables with plenty of coating around it get such a good reputation among pilots.  However, it's the big diameter and not the plastic wrap over the dangerous steel that saves your skin.

So, just go for bigger cable diameters then!? Currently the rules for CIVL-sanctioned competitions (Section 7) force us to use cables with a steel portion of no less than 1.9mm! This rule was designed to make sure the gliders integrity overall doesn't get harmed by too "ambitious" cable designs.  I believe, it is a good rule that has probably saved a number of pilots since it was enforced.

Competition pilots are drag paranoid.  If you leave them a choice they will decide for what has the least amount of drag then think about safety later on. It has a bit of a prisoner's dilemma (J.F.Naish) in it as well: If only one pilot decides to not-cooperate, all those who originally wanted to act on common sense ("use thicker cables") will finally join in and blow the gentlemen agreement in no time.

Combine all the above given information and you will find sample (i) and (iv) as the only ones that match all the "requirements" for the top guns (remember {ii) and (iii) have too much cross section, and (v) has not enough steel portion to pass the rule!)

If I had to pick between (i) and (iv), I would always prefer (i). It is stronger and - believe me - cuts skin less likely.  I imagine, that's why most competition pilots have chosen it as well.  If I was a beginner pilot, I would probably act on my instructor’s advice.  If my skill level was somewhere in between top pilot and beginner, I would probably go with your conclusion and choose samples

(iii) or (ii), since performance issues most likely wouldn't really matter yet.

Steve Kroop «flytec» responds:

The test that you refer to sounds scientific and it should be compelling however, you are right I remain skeptical.  Here is why:

In the test it sounds like the cables (coated and uncoated) were used as cutting tools (i.e., the angle of the "meat" to the blade was probably near 90°). I propose that if the same test was conducted where the meat was introduced to the "cutting wire" at increasing angles of incidence it would become increasingly difficult to get the coated wire to "catch" and then cut.

It is my contention that at acute angles the coating acts like an over-sleeve roller.  In certain instances (e.g., hooking the inside of your elbow around a cable) it probably wouldn't matter if the wires were coated, as your study suggests.  On the other hand, in a glancing situation (which I suspect is a bit more common than the previous scenario) I believe the results would be less severe injuries.  I have no test data to prove this, only observation.  I have seen crashes and wreckages where coated wires were partially striped and/or rolled and there were only bruises and red marks on the pilot’s skin.

Perhaps this is only due to the fact that the wires are thicker because of the coating.  Or it may be the case that it is a combination of greater surface area and "rolling action". Either way what is the harm in having coated wires if every one has them?  Especially since it is relatively undisputed that coated wires are better in a parachute deployment situation.

Oh yes there is one more advantage…according to the wire manufacturers there is less kinking :-)

Discuss "Wires" at the Oz Report forum   link»

to Table of Contentsto next topic No to FAI Sporting Licenses

Wed, Apr 23 2003, 4:00:06 pm EDT

CIVL|competition|cost|Europe|FAI|FAI Sporting License|HPAC|insurance|NAA|sport|Vincene Muller

Vincene Muller «fly» writes:

I have looked after badges, records & sporting licences in Canada for the past 20 years.  Currently the interest in competitions is at an all time low.  Our Meet Directors are going to great lengths to try and encourage pilots to enter competitions.  For our Nationals in 2003, the meet director has applied for Category 2 status.  It is unfortunate that CIVL is insisting on all competitors having a sporting licence.  This 'rule' will ensure low attendance at our National competitions.  This I am sure is not the intent of CIVL.

I have never understood why CIVL requires a sporting licence for cat 2. In North America , unlike Europe, very few pilots have a sporting licence unless they represent their country or attempt records.  There does not appear to be a valid reason to force pilots to have a sporting license for a cat 2 event.  CIVL does not benefit financially, the FAI doesn't get additional fees.  The only body that benefits is the Aero Club of Canada.

The Hang Gliding & Paragliding Association of Canada are having financial problems due to a huge increase in insurance premiums (the same as other organizations in the FAI/CIVL). Each year they question the reason why they are paying huge fees to the Aero Club of Canada (who in turn pays to the FAI). The majority of pilots receive no benefit from the FAI/CIVL membership.  Over the years I have strongly urged the HPAC to continue membership however it becomes more and more difficult as our Board of Directors try to justify huge fees and now the latest demands regarding pilots entering a national meet to have to purchase a sporting licence.

The sport of hang gliding is dying in North American, paragliding is barely surviving and it is our aim to encourage pilots to enter competitions which give great publicity and hopefully brings in more participants.  I believe that CIVL should be working on increasing participation rather than imposing additional rules and fees.

We have had several prospective competition directors back out of holding national championship because of the CIVL rule regarding a sporting licence.  The message the you just sent threatens to destroy future competition in Canada & possibly other countries as well.

(editor’s note: FAI Sporting License cost: $35.00, for non-NAA member $25.00, Individual NAA Membership Dues U.S.-$34)

Discuss "No to FAI Sporting Licenses" at the Oz Report forum   link»

to Table of Contentsto next topic CIVL – out of touch?

Wed, Apr 23 2003, 4:00:07 pm EDT

aerotow|CIVL|competition|FAI|Florida|G.W. Meadows|Hansjoerg Truttmann|Hay|Oz Report|sport|Swiss Nic|Worlds

G. W. Meadows «gw» writes:

It's unfortunate, but a fact that the CIVL is out of touch with real hang gliding and what's truly going on. If the CIVL continues to "nickel and dime" an ailing sport, then it will slowly be abandoned completely.

I have heard much talk about "what is the need for the CIVL"? This talk is from educated people - not from folks who don't know the system.  The biggest value offered by CIVL is the sanctioning of world records and world championships.  How much of this can't be done in another manner?

A good example of being out of touch with hang gliding is a look at the last vote regarding the hang gliding world championships.  I was just at the Flytec Championships - the largest and most successful aerotow meet ever held in hang gliding.  An extremely large group of international pilot was at this competition.  No one - not one single person - could understand why the world meet was voted for in Hay.  Not one single pilot (including the Australian pilots) wanted to go to Hay for the world championships.  There was much talk by the pilots that the CIVL and its delegates never got the opinion of the pilots - the very people who are most affected by this decision.

Maybe it's time to look at replacing the CIVL with a responsive organization.

(editor’s note: What we have here is a failure to communicate.  I repeatedly asked in the Oz Report for competition pilots to contact their CIVL delegates re their preferences for the Worlds’ location.  I asked for the two groups who would put forward proposals to post them on their web sites (the Australians did a few days before the CIVL Plenary). Somehow this wasn’t enough.  If it is truly unanimous that pilots want to go to Florida for the Worlds and not to Hay, then perhaps something should be done.)

Hansjoerg Truttmann «Hansjoerg.Truttmann» writes:

The major decisions in CIVL are taken by the delegates of the countries present at the annual meetings.  No need to blame CIVL for not getting the opinion of the pilots.  Blame the delegates or perhaps the national aeroclubs who name the delegates or even the pilots themselves.

Whoever wants to know what is up to be decided in CIVL has lots of possibilities to get the information (CIVL-homepage, Oz Report). And normally if a pilot wants to have his opinion heard by his delegate, he usually has the means.

In Switzerland I sent an e-mail to all involved pilots to ask where they want to fly their Worlds.  I got several responses of pilots who know both, Florida and Hay.  *All* were in favor of Hay.  And the Swiss delegate voted for Hay (I personally would have opted for Florida).

Discuss "CIVL – out of touch?" at the Oz Report forum   link»

The Oz Report, a near-daily, world wide hang gliding news ezine, with reports on competitions, pilot rankings, political issues, fly-ins, the latest technology, ultralight sailplanes, reader feedback and anything else from within the global HG community worthy of coverage. Hang gliding, paragliding, hang gliders, paragliders, aerotowing, hang glide, paraglide, platform towing, competitions, fly-ins. Hang gliding and paragliding news from around the world, by Davis Straub.

The Oz Report is being read from (approximately) these locations:
Locations of visitors to this page