Flytec
Wills Wing

Oz Report

topic: Martin Henry (56 articles)

Martin Henry on Cloudbase Mayhem

December 17, 2020, 9:31:49 pm EST

Martin Henry on Cloudbase Mayhem

Funny stories from a rigid wing pilot

Barry Bateman|Charles "Charlie" Baughman|Cloudbase Mayhem|Davis Straub|Jeff Shapiro|Joe Bostik|Kari Castle|Larry Tudor|Manfred Ruhmer|Martin Henry|PG|record|sailplane|video

https://www.cloudbasemayhem.com/episode-134-martin-henry-and-a-lifelong-pursuit

Need a good laugh? Kick back and listen to Martin Henry, a Canadian Hang glider and paraglider who has been chasing free flight for almost 50 years tell some really fun stories. Get on board as we travel around the world, learn how to thermal, fly triangles, retrieve your significant other, fly competitions, compete in the Worlds, compete in the Worlds with your wife!, figure it out, crash, tumble, bomb out, send it, learn, and drink a nice cold beer with your friends after yet another wonderful day at cloudbase. This episode is pure joy and filled with tons of great advice and great learning thrown in regardless of where you are in the sport and what you hope to achieve. This show is an educational, entertaining BLAST- enjoy!

Check out this 1975 era hang gliding footage that Martin put together (this was off a VHS folks, so give the sound a break!).

The issues in the beginning. “This product can, may, and will fail under any and all circumstances.”
“These gliders were VERY efficient at killing people”
How Mansfield, WA came into the picture
The wow factor of the Washington flats
Open distance on a rigid wing spells “divorce”
Flying triangles
The golden age of hang gliding
What got folks back in the day and “survivor bias”
What the early pilots brought from sailplane knowledge
Competition flying
Flying in the Alps
Maintaining control- don’t give up
Is paragliding heading the same way as hang gliding?
“Flying? You should maybe think about taking up heroin!”
The early days of comps
Chasing records
Hard lessons
Fear injuries and how to recover
How relaxed should we be? You have to feel the wing
How does our relationship with risk change as we age?
“I’m a mediocre pilot who tries to fly safely”. Don’t ignore your own skills, or the reality of the day.
Transferable skills between different aircraft
Don’t be a passenger
Stories of Larry Tudor (1:23:00)
Be wary of distraction- getting away with it until you don’t

Mentioned in the Show:

Malin Lobb, Bastienne Wentzel, Nik Hawks, Miguel Gutierrez, Larry Tudor, Stewart Midwinter, Charlie Baughman, Kari Castle, Willi Mueller, Chris Mueller, Alex Raymont, Wills Wing, Moyes, Aeros, Barry Bateman, Davis Straub, Brad Gunnuscio, Nicole McLearn, Joe Bostik, Manfred Ruhmer, Chrigel Maurer, Jeff Shapiro, Russ Ogden, Jeff Farrell, Randy Campadore, Chris Santacroce

Advanced Notice for FAI/CIVL Records

August 14, 2020, 8:34:36 MDT

Advanced Notice for FAI/CIVL Records

This is a bit of a change in the record chasing procedures

CIVL|Martin Henry|record

Martin Henry <<gliding>> writes:

From the Sporting Code:

3.3.1. Advance notice

Advance notice is required for all record attempts, except at the competitions where FAI officials are present and proper arrangements have been made to control the attempt. The pilot must make the record attempt declaration to his NAC prior to taking off via email or electronic means.

Well at first glance, this seems to be a nice evolution of the process, unless you consider the implication that you must have internet/cell access to declare a task (For sure, not something that I have at L+13 in Washington State).  It also assumes your NAC has put in place a process that complies with the Sporting Code  section.

I also find curious, this amendment fails (or eliminates) the use of an Official Observer and the overseeing of a record attempt, or at least overseeing the “declaration” (since there is no additional wordings in the section that would suggest that the previous alternate procedure can be used).

This is a substantial change in the procedure, going from "No notification is required for a record attempt" to "Advance notice is required for all record attempts."

Discuss "Advanced Notice for FAI/CIVL Records" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Martin Henry's Failed Launch

June 10, 2020, 9:00:24 MDT

Martin Henry's Failed Launch

ATOS VQ-Race

Martin Henry

https://towforce.blogspot.com/2020/06/my-accident-report-woodside-may-27th.html

On May 27th, 12:30, with light and variable conditions, I was attempting to launch my rigid wing hang glider (ATOS VQ-Race) off Mount Woodside in the Fraser Valley.
The conditions on launch were warm with clear sky, slightly thermic, with an inconsistent, variable breeze coming into the launch ( 0 – 5mph, generally “up the hill”). Hooked in and on launch getting ready to go, it took several minutes for conditions to yield a favorable cycle.

I picked up my glider and started my run. Within the first few steps I immediately noticed that something felt wrong. The glider felt heavy and I recall a “not quite right” sensation (which may have caused me to hesitate my stride?).

One or two more strides further into the launch run, I felt the glider was getting ahead of me and not lifting. Now totally committed to the takeoff, I was trying to keep up with the wing. In a desperate effort (too little too late), I went prone in my harness, grabbed the base and pushed out to try and save the takeoff. Too little too late, with obviously not enough airspeed, I was starting to settle back onto the slope. The control bar base tube began catching some low brush and the rock covered terrain. Very quickly, the control bar failed and crumpled at the weak links (more on this later).

With the control bar collapsed and me dragging across the terrain like an anchor, the glider pitched/flew forward, nosed over and rolled itself upside down and ended up inverted and pointed back up the hill. I distinctly remember hearing the awful noises of what sounded like my Carbon wing grinding to a halt. As the glider and I “nested” onto the hill, I ended up on my back, laying on top of the inverted undersurface of the wing. My very first thought was… “Shit… this can’t be good for my glider!” (Seriously).

Discuss "Martin Henry's Failed Launch" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Supporting the Oz Report »

Fri, Mar 6 2020, 8:02:44 am EST

Pilots are generous people

Alan Deikman|Charles Allen|Larry Bunner|Martin Henry|Oz Report|Vince Furrer|Vincene Muller

TThanks to these special contributors: Ken Lightsey, Benjamin Friedrich, David I McAnally, Collard Collard, Alan Deikman, Larry Bunner, Charles Allen, Martin Henry, Indasky, Vince Furrer, Karl Allmendinger, Vincene Muller, Daniel Guido, and Nicholas Palmer.

This is the month where I ask Oz Report readers for their support. Your contribution pays for hosting our web site and for Gerry's technical support to keep it running.

Here are our supporters: https://OzReport.com/supporters.php

As you know, all we are asking for is a subscription payment of $20/year.

Seems simple enough. Like most content on the internet, you get to read the Oz Report for free. The trouble for us, not you, is that there are not enough hang glider pilots in this world to make advertising pay for our web hosting costs.

Please, help us out. Support something that you find useful so that it can continue to be there for you.

Options:

1) Click paypal.me/davisstraub.

You should see this:

Type in the amount that you want to send in for your subscription.

Click "Next"

You should see something like this:

If you can contribute from your PayPal Balance or from your bank account that is connected to your PayPal account, please do as this incurs no PayPal fee.

2) If instead you are using a credit card to make this contribution, click this button:

3) Another way to do this is, click here: https://www.paypal.com

With this option please click the "Send&Request" tab.

Type in my email address which you can discern from "davis" and I'm at "davisstraub.com". (I have to write it this way as we hide email addresses here at the Oz Report.

Click "Next."

You'll see:


If you consider me a friend then click the "Sending to a friend" button.

Enter the amount here:

If you’d rather just send a check for $20 or more (US Dollars only, please), please feel free to do so.

Payable to:

Davis Straub (Not to the Oz Report)
6548 Groveland Airport Road
Groveland, FL 34736

If you send a physical check, be sure to send me your email address so that I can register you as a subscriber.

These are our supporters (if you are not on the list and have donated to the Oz Report, email me and I'll make sure that you are recognized): https://OzReport.com/supporters.php. Some of you who I've missed in the past did write to me and made sure I knew just how important the Oz Report was to them. If I've missed you, please do tell me.

4) This last option. Come over to the Oz Report support web page and sign up to support us: https://OzReport.com/support.php. Or click here:

Thanks to all our supporters: https://OzReport.com/supporters.php who have kept us going and paying our bills over the last twenty four years.

Discuss "Supporting the Oz Report" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

Oz Report supporters for 2018

April 2, 2018, 8:38:09 EDT

Oz Report supporters for 2018

Tell me if I missed you.

Alan Deikman|Allan Phillips|April Mackin|Ben Dunn|Bruce Kavanagh|Bubba Goodman|Chris Boyce|Cragin Shelton|Daniel Gravage|Dara Hogan|Dave Embertson|David Glover|David Williamson|Doug Keller|Dudley Mead|Eric Beckman|Gakuta Toba|Gary Solomon|Geoffrey Rutledge|Glen Volk|Gregg "Kim" Ludwig|Harald Steen|James Bradley|James Lamb|Jason Williams|John Armstrong|John Hesch|John Kennedy|John Simon|Jonathan Dietch|Justinas Pleikys|Ken Howells|Ken Kinzie|Krzysztof "Krys/Kris" Grzyb|Mark Stump|Martin Henry|Martin Jaeger|Maurice Wilson|Mike Barber|Miles Fagerlie|Mitchell "Mitch" Shipley|Niki Longshore|Oz Report|Patrick Schwitter|Paul Voight|Peter Bolton|Quest Air|Raef Mackay|Richard Williams|Riker Davis|Roger Irby|Scott Barrett|Scott Seebass|Scott Smith|Scott Weiner|Stewart Midwinter|supporters|Tom McGowan|Vince Furrer|Vincene Muller|Vrezh Tumanyan|Wayne Ripley|William "Billo" Olive|Wilotree Park|Winfried Oswald

Thanks to all who have helped us out. We could not afford to pay http://pair.com to host the Oz Report without your support. 

Adriel Kind Gregg Ludwig Miles Fagerlie
Alan Crouse Gregory Angsten Mitchell Shipley
Alan Deikman Gregory Pierson Nicholas Palmer
Alexandra Childs Hadewych van Kempen Nicole Longshore
Alf Oppoyen Harald Steen Patrick Halfhill
Allan Phillips Heinz Tagmann Patrick Kruise
Allen Ahl Hubert Jason Williams Patrick Pannese
Angelos Mantas J. Russell Locke Patrick Schwitter
Angry Penguin Inc. James (Dennis) Yeomans Paul Kelley
anonymous James Aden Paul Voight
Anthony Armstrong James Bradley Perry Jones
April Mackin James Gibson Peter Adams
Belcourt Industries James Lamb Peter Bolton
Ben Dunn Jan Snydr-Michal Peter Cairns
Bernard Garvey Jason Smith Peter Kelley
Bill Finn Jeffrey Curtis Peter Swanson
Bill Snyder Jim Kolynich Philip Morgan
Billo Jim Prahl Quest Air
Bruce Kavanagh Jim Ramsden Rachel Allen
Bubba Goodman John "Kip" Stone Raef Mackay
Carlos Alonso de Florida John Armstrong Richard Caylor
Carlos Schmitz John Blank Richard Eunice
Carol Sturtevant John Devorak Richard Larson
Catherine Hunter John Dullahan Richard Milla
Chris Boyce John Haig Thompson Richard Williams
Christian Schelb John Hesch Riker Davis
Christian Williams John Kennedy Robert Bay
Chuck and Gayle Warren John Middleton Robert Bradley
Claude Carlier John Simon Robert Caldwell
Cliff Rice Jon Lindburg Robert Dallas
Clive Beddall Jon Thompson Robert Goodman
Cragin Shelton Jonathan Dietch Roger Irby
Craig Carlson Jorge Cano Ronald P. Gleason
Craig DeMott Jostein Vorkinn Scott Barrett
Daniel Gravage Justin Elliott Scott Seebass
Daniel Lukaszewicz Justinas Pleikys Scott Smith
Danny Utinske Keith Barghahn Scott Weiner
Dara Hogan Ken Cobb Scott Westfall
Darrell Hambley Ken Durstine Scott Whittet
Dave Embertson Ken Howells secret admirer at Seminole
David Davenport Ken Kinzie Sky Sports Flying School Pty. Ltd.
David Fynn Kenneth Durrance Stefan Kern
David Glover Keven Morlang Stephan Mentler
David Goto Kinsley Sykes Stephen Parson
David Lopez Knut Ryerson Steven Blackler
David Stookey Koos de Keijzer Steven Boost
David Williamson Krzysztof Grzyb Stewart Midwinter
Dean Engler LakeShore Hang Gliding SvS Design
Doug Keller Larry Huffman Sydney Hang Gliding Centre
Douglas Brown Larry Omara The Passing Zone, Inc.
Dudley Mead Larry Robinson Thomas C. Ide
Edward Andrews Lee Silver Thomas Curbishley
Edward Saunier Luff Line Ltd. Thomas Eckstein
Elizabeth Rothman Luther Thompson Timothy Delaney
Emiel Jansen M. C. Campanella Toba Gakuta
Eric Beckman Marc Deschenes Tom McGowan
Fernando Milani Marcelo Silva Vince Furrer
Flytec USA Marco Gerber Vincene Muller
Frank Havermeyer Mario Manzo Vincent Collins
Fred Kramer Mark Stump Vrezh Tumanyan
Frode Halse Martin Henry Vuelo Libre
Gary McIntrie Martin Jaeger Walter Nielsen
Gary Solomon Matt Taber Wayne DeVilbiss
Geoffrey Robertson Matt Thoreson Wayne Ripley
Geoffrey Rutledge Maurice Wilson William A. Baker
Giorgos Karachalios Max Tunbridge Wills Wing
Glen Salmon Michael Bomstad Wilotree Park
Glen Volk Michael Duffy Winfried Oswald
Glenn Curran Michael Fitzgerald Wings to Fly ltd.
Glenn Nutt Mick Howard
Greg Fergus Mike Barber

Yukon flying

June 8, 2015, 7:34:29 EDT

Yukon flying

245 km from Whitehorse

Martin Henry|PG

http://www.xcontest.org/world/en/flights/detail:ShawnK/24.5.2015/19:17#fd=flight

Thanks to Martin Henry. He asks if this is the longest flight (a paraglider flight) north of 60 degrees.

Discuss "Yukon flying" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Tandem from the hills in Canada

Wed, Apr 30 2014, 8:17:19 am EDT

Martin Henry, the HPAC/ACVL 2012 Accident Investigator.

Lenami Godinez-Avila

fatality|HPAC|Lenami Godinez-Avila|Martin Henry|PG|William Jonathan "Jon" Orders

http://towforce.blogspot.com.au/2014/04/an-open-letter-to-tandem-hang-glider.html

Immediately after the accident, acting on behalf of the Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association of Canada, I began an accident investigation. The investigation concluded in the summer of 2012. Recommendations were formulated over the fall and in late 2012, submitted to the HPAC via a senior instructors seminar in Vancouver, B.C., Canada.

Eventually the legal system slowly formulated it’s response and on February 11th 2014 our flying community saw the legal conclusion to the story of this tragic event. The legal system found the pilot guilty of “criminal negligence causing death” and has sentenced the pilot to 5 months in jail (and a series of other court assigned penalties).

The accidental omission of a basic, accepted procedure resulted in the death of Lenami Godinez-Avila, a person with far too much life left to live. The Godinez-Avila family and friends have all suffered a great loss. The pilot found responsible has undergone a permanent dramatic life altering event and will be his burden for life. There is no resolution that can possibly appear “just” or “proper”, sadly all the parties must live with what it has become.

Discuss "Tandem from the hills in Canada" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

Winch towing rigid wing gliders

Wed, Jul 20 2011, 10:17:17 am EDT

Towing rigid wing gliders

Foot launching

Belinda Boulter|Dave Sharp|Martin Henry|video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcKebsmnVUk

Miller Stroud <<vrodtn>> writes:

Since the interest in surface towing (foot launching) an Atos has come up, I thought I would share my experiences of the last three years. I would guess I now have at least forty five foot launched tows under my belt. It's still my preferred method of launching under tow for two reasons. One, I don't have Martin Henry's rig, and two it's so dang easy. Oh, and by the way, I'm 51 years old, so no whining from you younger guys.

Some of this info will be suggestions and some will be absolute "Do Not Deviate". It is assumed that my setup consist of a "V" bridle with a double release. The apex of the "V" is attached to the tow line with a weak link located at the "V". I have a single line over and a single line under the basetube attaching to my LOWER tow loops on my harness. These suggestions are not for aero towing but for winch towing from the surface.

1. Use a double release consisting of a line under and a line over the bar. WHEN FLYING AN ATOS, DO NOT USE A SINGLE LINE UNDER THE BASETUBE. The bottom line should have enough slack as to not touch the basetube during the initial 100 feet of climb. If the bottom line touches you will not be able to make small roll adjustments. You will either be full on or full off with your spoilers. You'll now if it happens as the controls become very jerky and require considerably effort to turn.

2. Do not release the top line too soon. If you do release too soon, and you will sooner or later, go ahead and slightly increase your climb angle to reduce the amount of basetube contact time. The Atos climbs our very quickly and if you were just a bit premature with your top line release, the contact time should be only a few seconds. Again, if you do, the angle of the bottom line will be touching the bottom of the basetube and your back to the situation described in #1. As I'm climbing out I watch the angle of the top line in relation to the basetube. As it begins to touch is when I usually transfer to the bottom line.

3. Be prepared for a weak link break when releasing the top line. Due to the slack in the bottom line, upon release, a shock is transmitted to the weak link. I have had it break during the transition but remedied the problem with a stronger weak link. I try to soften the blow by pulling in a bit, and I mean just a little, or informing the tow driver to reduce tension momentarily. This has not been a problem as of late. The shock can also be reduced by adjusting your "V" bridle (shortening your bottom line) as to have the least amount of slack required to clear the basetube.

4. Use a release that requires one motion to release both lines in an emergency. You don't want to be grasping for two separate releases in an emergency. I think you get the idea.

5. DO NOT LAUNCH WITHOUT FLAPS. I'll say it again, DO NOT LAUNCH WITHOUT FLAPS. Yes, I have done this. The only marginal launches I have experienced have been due to this oversight. You will double your takeoff run at the very least. You can reduce your flap setting if the surface winds are significant. I use a standard mountain launch setting.

6. Crosswind launches while foot launching greatly increase your chances of an incident. Use a wing runner if you must launch. You cannot launch in the same crosswinds that you can while platform towing. It's the price we pay for foot launching Rigids. I have not tried crabbing the wing into the wing while running. You can do that yourself and get back with me on how it went.

7. Lay out at least 300-400 feet of line before beginning your tow. This really dampens the effects of towing on initial climb out. The amount of line that is initially laid out will determine the height at which you will have to release the top line. The longer the line, the more altitude before release, which is a good thing. You are going to have to have a method of communicating with your driver, clearly and effectively. Once you have cleared the ground and are climbing, tell your driver "Good Launch", remember, he's 400 feet down the road.

8. YOU WILL NOT NEED ADDITIONAL TOW PRESSURE ON YOUR INITIAL LAUNCH. Use the same pressure you would use to climb up the line if you were platform towing. Do not start your tow with slack in your tow line, This is not a beach start.

9. HOOK IN! I saw it happen once, not to me. It was not pretty. You will not leave the ground but you will find it.

10. Until you master this method of launching, I would highly recommend that you choose a day day with a little wind. Even 5 mph makes a HUGE difference. In a steady 10mph expect your takeoff run to be around three steps. In a 0 mph with no flaps expect to talk to God and get religion.

11. DO NOT TOW OFF OF YOUR AEROTOW LOOPS. Use the bottom loops on your harness. It's no fun standing on your head while being towed by a vehicle. You will be fine until you climb out, that's when the religion kicks in again.

12. Make your driver tow you. Do not out run your tow vehicle. I dig in and lean back during the first initial steps with a tight line. It works!

Dave Sharp and I towed with just a single line under the base tube with our ATOSes in Zapata in 2000 with a static (fixed length) line behind Belinda driving the truck. I also did this at Hobbs behind a payout winch.

Discuss "Towing rigid wing gliders" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Flying in National Parks in Canada

September 14, 2010, 10:00:35 pm MST

Flying in National Parks in Canada

Now you can

Martin Henry|PG

Martin Henry sends:

Recent news in Canada regarding our National Parks (link to West Coast Soaring Club, web site):

http://www.westcoastsoaringclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6115

Hang Gliding and Paragliding in Canada's world famous National Parks is about to become a reality.

Discuss "Flying in National Parks in Canada" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Dustin gets his World record

November 26, 2009, 9:05:38 PST

Dustin gets his World record

Dustin sets a speed triangle record at Zapata at the WRE

Dustin Martin|Martin Henry|record|Wills Wing T2C

record FAI <<record>> sends:

Type of record : Speed over a triangular course of 100 km
Course/location : Zapata, TX (USA)
Performance : 49.8 km/h
Pilot : Dustin MARTIN (USA)
Hang Glider : Wills Wing T2C 144
Date :27.07.2009
Previous record : 44.1 km/h (24.07.2002 - Martin HENRY, Canada)

200 km FAI triangle

In the flat lands

200 km FAI triangle

August 7, 2009, 8:27:00 CDT

A.I.R. ATOS VR|Martin Henry

Martin Henry <<gliding>> writes:

Sometimes, it's not always the huge monster cross countries that need to be appreciated. I spotted this on the DHV OLC yesterday and it is what I believe to be a pretty amazing flight:

http://xc.dhv.de/xc/modules/leonardo/index.php?name=leonardo&op=show_flight&flightID=100170

The pilot is Dirk Ripkens, and he did a stellar job of putting together a 200 km FAI triangle on the German/Dutch borders on an ATOS VR. It is not exactly known as "the place to be" when it comes to epic Cross Country!  In Dirk's own words "Super Tag"!....

Dustin's record claim

August 4, 2009, 5:09:56 pm CDT

Dustin's record claim

His 100 km FAI triangle record at the FAI

Dustin Martin|Martin Henry|record|Wills Wing T2C

Record FAI <<record>> writes:

Type of record : Speed over a triangular course of 100 km
Course/location : Zapata, TX (USA)
Performance : 49 km/h
Pilot : Dustin MARTIN (USA)
Hang Glider : Wills Wing T2C 144
Date : 26.07.2009
Current record : 44.1 km/h (24.07.2002 - Martin HENRY, Canada)

World Record Encampment »

July 26, 2009, 6:10:08 pm CDT

World Record Encampment

Dustin sets new Worlds Record for speed around 100 km triangle

David Glover|Dustin Martin|Gary Osoba|Martin Henry|record

Dustin got the World Record 49.85 km/h for 100 km FAI triangle. Beats the rigid wing world record also. Previous World record was Martin Henry's east of Chelan Washington at 44 km/h. The rigid wing World record was 46 km/h.

The cu's started soon after noon. We launched between 2:30 PM and 3 PM. There was a 11 to 20 mph wind out of the south east. Cloud base was 8,500'.

Martin's Mansfield record goes down

Fast flying in Namibia

Martin's

July 10, 2008, 8:26:03 EDT

A.I.R. ATOS VR|Martin Henry|record

FAI writes:

Type of record : Speed over a triangular course of 100 km
Course/location : Moreson Farm - Malta Hohe (Namibia)
Performance : 46.3 km/h
Pilot : Jean-François VIOLETTE (France) AIR Atos VR
Date :10.01.2008
Previous record : 42 km/h (10.07.2004 - Martin HENRY, Canada)

Yes, I did indeed have the record prior to Martin. I also beat Martin's record at 44.28 km/h (http://ozreport.com/toc.php?9.101#0) . Now even that unofficial record has been eclipsed.

Rigid Wing Triangle speed record claim

January 15, 2008, 3:58:33 GMT+1100

Rigid Records

100 km

Martin Henry|record

Current record:

Speed over a triangular course of 100 km : 42 km/h
Date of flight: 10/07/2004 Pilot: Martin HENRY (Canada)
Course/place: Mansfield, WA (USA)
Hang glider: AIR Atos C

FAI writes:

Course/location : Moreson Farm - Malta Hohe (Namibia)
Performance : 44.11 km/h
Pilot : Jean-François VIOLETTE (France)
Date :10.01.2008

Discuss Rigid Records at the Oz Report forum   link»

King Kong Triangles

They do big triangles in the Alps

Triangles

July 22, 2006, 8:55:05 CDT

A.I.R. ATOS VR|Martin Henry

Martin Henry «gliding» who finds it difficult to go far in eastern Washington due to geographic restrictions writes:

You should mention some recent spectacular HOLC flights (click the link) that, to say the least have been truly breath-taking. After all, there is really only one kind of pure cross country flying, the pursuit of the Monster FAI Triangle!

Toni Raumauf, Wolfgang Kothgasser and Reinhard Poppl have been real pilots showing the rest of us how getting out there, then coming home scores the big HOLC points. Wolfgang on the 19th nearly closed a 400km triangle. Toni has had several over the 300km.

This year the flights in the Alps have been killing my efforts to do some big distances in the Columbia Basin of Washington State. I can only wish for a 300k triangle in the coming weeks (I'm so jealous and the conditions have been so poor, oh so sad is my life on my new AIR ATOS VR.)

Like I said, sure you can aimlessly drift down wind to cover those miles (ooops Km's), but man there is nothing sweeter then landing back at home after a hard days work! (and its good for the environment !) To all of the top OLC class 5 pilot, Great work guys... Triangles Rule!

What do you think? Should the HOLC score Completed triangles with an even higher multiplier? I think so!

I think that pilot should fly the flights that are appropriate to where they fly. Big triangles (and out and returns) are appropriate for the Alps. Long distance flights, and fast smaller triangles and out and returns when the winds die are appropriate for Texas. Pilots love to hear about and dream about really long distance flights.

I agree that triangle or out and return flights are very good for the Alps and that is the kind of flights I have flown when I've flown there. They are having a heat "wave" in Europe and that means blue skies and low chances of rain in the Alps. This makes it possible to have these spectacular flights.

Seems these guys are doing well with the current multiplier.

Zapata Journal - Sunday

July 16, 2006, 11:30:30 pm CDT

Zapata

The forecast is for 10 knot northeast winds in the afternoon

David Glover|Lawrence "Pete" Lehmann|Manfred Ruhmer|Martin Henry|news|Pete Lehmann|record

The winds are light (as forecasted) in the morning. Blue until noon with cu's beginning to form to the south. By 1 PM the cu's are overhead and to a north a bit. High cloud base and light winds. Nice cu's forming 100 miles further to the north and up on the Edwards plateau up through the panhandle. Just no wind to get you there.

No one takes off in the morning, other than David Glover who soloed his Cessna 150 after beginning instruction with Pete Lehmann and a ride with the airport manager. Charlie, here.

Armand, Manfred and Pete Lehman took off in the afternoon in a light east wind with cu's ever where that we could see.

This is the satellite photo at 3:25 PM. The east flow is clear in the south and southeast further north. Nice to see all these little cu's throughout the state.

Pete was going to go for the 100 km FAI triangle record that Martin Henry holds (http://records.fai.org/hang_gliding/current.asp?id1=o-1&id2=1), 44.1 km/hr (27.4 mph). 

Pete does the task in a ten mph east wind at 24.5 mph. My rigid wing record is 27.5 mph. The flight.

It was a beautiful afternoon full of great cu's and 7,500' cloud bases.

Canadian Sailplane magazine article on ATOSes

May 8, 2006, 3:34:51 pm EDT

ATOS

Letting the sailplane folks know that we are still out here alive and kicking.

Carlos Rizo|Martin Henry|sailplane

Carlos Rizo|Jacques Bott|Martin Henry|sailplane

Carlos Rizo «carlosrizo» sends this link: http://www.sac.ca/freeflight/06_02.pdf

My thanks to noted Canadian pilot Martin Henry for his info on the evolution of the ATOS line of gliders, and thanks also to French pilot Jacques Bott (flying in the photo above) for personal comments on the class structure and much of the information on the Atos-VR that he flies and competes with.

Jacques began his flying career in 1971 as a glider pilot (now captain of an Air France Boeing 777). He says, “I’m still a soaring pilot in my soul. I intend to return to soaring when I’m too old to shift around under a hang glider and too old to practise my profession. Although I was a soaring enthusiast (300 km triangle with a Ka6 in 1975), I left that activity in 1978 when, for the first time, I succeeded in spiraling in a thermal and reaching cloudbase with my delta hang glider, even if in those days they had very poor performance.”

Discuss ATOS at the Oz Report forum

World Records »

Fri, Nov 11 2005, 5:00:04 am EST

By author

Davis Straub|Manfred Ruhmer|Martin Henry|record|Robin Hamilton|Rohan Holtkamp|Rohan Taylor|Tomas Suchanek

Manfred Ruhmner

Tomas Suchanek

Rohan Holtkamp

Martin Henry

Robin Hamilton

Davis Straub

Additional unofficial world records

Others

Discuss World records at the Oz Report forum

Aeros Safety Bulletin

Fri, Oct 28 2005, 5:00:04 am EDT

Oz Report article proposed a different method.

platform towing

Aeros Ltd|Martin Henry|Steve Daleo

Steve Daleo «steve» writes:

True to form, the Aeros folks have been continuing to analyze the platform tow situation. They examined Martin Henry’s suggestion and have determined that this method is acceptable and is both simpler and cleaner than the original upgrade suggestion

ADDITION TO THE SAFETY BULLETIN #6

CONCERNING PLATFORM TOWING ONLY

We have done ground tests with the rope attachment at the nose junction to the front bolt between the keel tube and the bottom nose plate (as it has been suggested by Martin Henry in Oz Report # 213 https://OzReport.com/9.213#0). With the slot made in the right place of the nose cone it was impossible to get the rope or the nose cone to interfere with the safety spring, the nose wire hook or the front wires.

To determine the correct location for the slot in the nose cone we recommend to rig the glider on the tow system (without the nose cone in place) , then transfer the nose release line angle on to the nose cone. The 2 inch (50 millimeters) slot will allow for a reasonable amount of angle of attack variation (see Martin Henry's suggestion in the OZ Report # 213 https://OzReport.com/9.213#0).

As a result of these tests we have reached conclusion that it is possible to use the abovementioned method of the rope attachment for the gliders used for platform towing without changing the front wires with the wires catch assemblies.

For those pilots who are still willing to perform the modification of their gliders with the retrofit kit (see Safety Bulletin # 6) for the platform tow Aeros will provide the parts for modification as an option.

Discuss "Aeros Safety Bulletin" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

Nose catch?

Tue, Oct 18 2005, 4:00:00 pm EDT

Did you say something about nose wires on your Aeros?

HPAC|Kent Robinson|Martin Henry|Mike Degtoff

Gerry «Gerry» writes:

When you wrote about the Aeros nose wires in https://ozreport.com/9.212#1  I thought it had been my buddy Steve P. that had written to Aeros.  Last month when he was about to do a platform payout tow with his Stealth (he has a Discus too), with a setup very similar to the one shown in https://ozreport.com/9.212#1, while doing the pre-launch check I noticed that the wire bail in the nose clip was being held open by the nose nappie that was being pressed by the nose release line, very much like in https://ozreport.com/pub/images/towsetup2005alberta2.jpg

A little pressure with one finger and the ring popped right out.  We tried adjusting the nosecone, routing the nose release around either side of the ring, and even through the ring.  I think we finally settled on routing it under the ring (between the nose wires),  The ring was held out of position a bit, but the bail was able to close all the way and nothing was pressing on it.

The discussion of the requirement of keeping the nose release relatively horizontal for topless gliders reminded me that it would be worth mentioning that the nose of a topless glider should be set a bit lower than for kingposted ones before a platform launch.  If it's set to the same angle you may find yourself floating off of the control bar cradles just before reaching launch speed.

http://hpac.ca/tow/HPAC_Tow_Manual.asp#3.1.2a :

"A topless hang glider's nose bridle should pull directly forwards and not downwards on its nose to avoid extra strain on the keel.  The bridle may be routed over a bar and then downwards to the release mechanism as long as there is no chance of it becoming entangled upon release. 

Commonly a piece of Spectra tow rope with a loop spliced in the end is used, without any metallic rings at the end.  A kingposted hang glider can have it's nose pulled downwards and forwards, and since the downward force helps to keep it in the launch cradles a very slightly higher angle of attack can be used."

Kent Robinson « kent» writes:

Years ago, I had a similar issue with the nose wires on my TRX. In this case it was simply the pressure of the nose cone pressing on the spring loaded mushroom shaped catch. The nose line to the tow rig held the wires up so you couldn't see that they were loose.

Mike Degtoff probably saved my life that day when he double checked the rig before launch and casually asked me: "Hey Kent, are you going to launch like that?"

My interim (and ultimately long term) fix was to trim the nose cone a bit so it would not contact the release and also to tie the nose line around, rather than through, the wires.

Martin Henry «gliding» writes:

Here is a solution to the nose catch issue mentioned in the last Oz Report.

This is a shot of my wife's U2, note that the nose release rope is running directly through the nose cone. The cord runs through the center seam and is fastened onto the bolts used to assemble the nose plate.

The seam in the nose cone can easily be opened (just use a stitch ripper to pick out the treads that join the two halves of the nose cone). A slot of around 2 inches is all that is needed (allowing for minor changes in line angle). The shape of the cone, on the glider, keeps the slot closed.

To get the right location for the slot, rig the glider on the tow system (without the nose cone in place) , then transfer the nose release line angle on to the cone. The 2 inch slot will allow for a reasonable amount of variation.

The nice thing about routing through the nose cone is there is no conflict with any of the glider rigging and attachment points.

I use this system on all of my gliders (including a nice retractable system on my ATOS). I'm sure it's not "idiot proof" as there is bound to be somebody out there that could find a way to screw it up (such as rapping the cord around the forward rigging, then off to the release...), but I have never had any problems with using it this way. Perhaps a good reason to be using a "check list" prior to takeoff?

Discuss nose wires at the Oz Report forum

The Over/Under Double Decker Tandem Harness

Tue, Sep 13 2005, 2:00:04 pm EDT

Accident report

Brad Kushner|Martin Henry|weather

Martin Henry «gliding» writes:

The recent Oz Report (https://ozreport.com/9.186#3) contained comments by Brad Kushner with regards to use of the Over/Under Double Decker Tandem Harness.

I want to thank Brad for introducing comments on this subject.

Unlike Brad, I do not have “thousands of tandem tows”. My only source of knowledge on the subject was attained during a three month accident investigation involving the 2002 Fort Langley Tandem fatalities. In addition, my only other credentials include 30+ years in the sport. I’m not sure if that entitles me to contribute, but here goes.

In 2002, At Fort Langley, B.C. Canada, a tandem glider (Double Vision) being aero towed, suffered a catastrophic sail failure at altitude, both instructor and passenger were killed. Specific to this subject, the glider was fitted with the Over/Under Double Decker Tandem Harness.

At first glance, the use of the DD harness appears unrelated to the failure. I can also state that there is no proof that the DD harness contributed to the crash.

Now, I would like to introduce the following facts:

The pilot in command (instructor) for this flight was in the top harness. After extensive research and interviews, it was discovered that this fatal flight was the pilot's 1st top harness flight. Again, there exists no evidence this fact was associated with the failure, but does introduce the question; did the pilot's inexperience with the top harness position and or did the harness configuration contribute to the crash? Specifically to the investigation, is there any factor associated with DD harness that could have contributed to the accident?

To answer these questions, here is a brief summary of research that contributed to the investigations conclusion:

1: In 2001, at the same flight school, a tandem fatality occurred (Both instructor and student were killed). The tandem glider had just taken off when the student in the lower harness suffered a major medical event. With the student interfering with the controls and in medical distress (and causing the glider to turn), the instructor (in the top harness position) released from tow but was unable to stop the turn and the glider struck a windsock pole that was beside the runway.

2: Interviews with various instructors who have used the DD harness (in combination with the Double Vision) indicated that they would often experience reduced control authority from the top harness position.

In one interview, the instructor recalled a release at low altitude from an impending lock out. After releasing and taking command of the glider, it took several revolutions to regain control of the aircraft.

In other interviews where pilots that did not have issues with the control from the upper harness, pilots indicated that the upper harness position did require more authority but was within their acceptable range (limits).

3: Technical considerations of the DD harness included forces required move the total combined (instructor/student) weight/mass from the top harness position. In addition, access to, and use of the parachute reserve system was evaluated.

The accident investigation concluded: While no physical evidence could link the use of the DD harness to the 2002 sail failure there existed the possibility that a “loss of control may have precluded the catastrophic failure” and that such a control loss may have been the result of a lack of instructor experience and reduced control authority from the top harness position.

So where does this leave us? Am I suggesting we should ban or toss the Over/Under Double Decker Tandem Harness?

The answer is “No”.

What we do need to do is be cognizant of the limitations, we need to evolve, not ignore.

The Over/Under Double Decker Tandem Harness, used in an aerotowing configuration is possible the best method to deliver “introductory passenger” rides to the public. With the passenger in the top harness the instructor in the bottom, the DD gives you and excellent tight clean harness package. Good low control authority for the instructor and lots of room for both the instructor and passenger. It could be argued that relative to these points the DD is superior to the old side by side system.

Where we need some evolution is dealing with the physics of the reduced control authority experienced by an instructor using the top harness to teach. What sadly appears to have happened is that there is a reluctance to admit this reduced control authority could contribute to an accident. If the industry can accept this premise we can solve it, evolving to a safer system for all.

A good example of an attempt to address the issue is a few postings back were I made comment on some handles devised by one of the schools out there that provided a better grip for the upper pilot (https://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=886) .

Well I was not crazy about having these rigid “steer” horns sticking into the “cock-pit” I did appreciate the concept (with a little bit of a re-think, the idea could evolve).

As a final comment, the Over/Under Double Decker Tandem Harness, is only one piece of the 2002 accident investigation. It takes so many other pieces to solve a puzzle. We found issues that went well beyond the DD harness;

- Weak Links and towlines

- Towline release systems

- Pilot experience

- Glider certification

- Aircraft airworthiness

- Gross aircraft weight

- Reserve parachute systems

- Weather

These are just a few of the pieces that need to be evaluated to establish an understanding of why things can, and do go wrong. We owe it to the pilots and families of those who didn’t make it, to fix what went wrong.

Discuss over/under at the Oz Report forum

What? That's a World Record

Mon, May 9 2005, 3:00:03 pm EDT

In jest Martin Henry, the current world record holder responds

CIVL|Martin Henry|record

Martin Henry «gliding» writes:

So, what's with this little protest you got going? You claim to have flown some sort of world record eh? But you ain't going to tell your National Aero Club about it? All cause they don't merit the coin? You're a hard man. Where is your sense of patriotism? Where is that national pride you Americans are known to embrace? You don't think there is some well deserving NAC executive that could use a nice little $350 lunch with the mistress? This protest is perhaps, a little like holding your breath until mommy gives you your cookies?.

I back you up when it comes to the fee's. They do start to get out of hand when one bureaucracy starts to feed off of another. A few bucks here, a few bucks there, and the next thing you know you have a real bill to pay (of course, up in Canada, we are a whole lot more "Civl" about the fees then down in the land of the "free"). On the other hand, if we started to ask for the OLC to do the job of the FAI, I wonder how long it would be we would end up having to cough up the same amount of coin so that a new bureaucracy could be put in place to do the same job?

The real issue here is how you have upset my summer!

Normally, my summers are spent focusing on specific tasks, like chasing after "FAI" world records (your right, record pursuit can be a real gas). I target the ones that I think are prime for the breaking (like that 150 triangle I slipped by you last summer!). In the past I have always used the FAI list of world records (nice neat list, all in order, all checked, all done to a nice tidy list of rules). Now you have messed up everything. What am I going to do this summer? Am I going to give the boot to Davis's new list of unofficial "sort of" records or the real FAI records? Wonder where I can find a list of pretend records, that have at the very least been checked over by some sort of official?

Come on Davis, make it "official", your NAC executive could use that lunch money! After all you just dropped $20,000 on that VR of yours. Come to think of it, you only clipped me by 2km's? Hell, last summer I couldn't even get my C to trim,  now that I've figured how to get it slowed down. I think it's time to set a real 100k triangle speed!

(editor's note: The unofficial World Records can be found here: https://ozreport.com/compWorldRecords.php

Discuss records at the Oz Report forum

New World Record (unofficial) »

A.I.R. ATOS VR|CIVL|John Aldridge|Martin Henry|Paul Tjaden|Quest Air|record|world record

Fri, May 6 2005, 2:00:00 pm EDT

Speed around 100 km triangle.

The flight on-line.

Today I set the new world record for rigid wings (also beats the flex wing record) for speed around a 100 km FAI triangle flying my new AIR ATOS VR. The new record speed is 44.28 kmh flying from Quest Air in central Florida. The previous record, 42 kmh,  was set last year near Mansfield east of Chelan, Washington, USA by Canadian pilot Martin Henry (he also owns the flex wing 100 km world speed record at 44.1 kmh).

I had tried to set the record on the previous day when the forecast showed light winds and a few cu's. Unfortunately I raced too fast on the first leg and went down. Paul Tjaden, who was flying just behind me on an AIR ATOS VX, was able to complete the task, although not quite fast enough to set a new record.

The forecast for today was even better than yesterday. Strong lift, light winds, high cloud base, thick clouds (substantial difference between top of lift and projected cloud base). The FSL T-skew chart showed that the clouds would not get too high, with no over development, as there was an inversion starting at 6,500'. It looked like a perfect day for a record attempt. The only question was which one to fly: the 150 km or 100 km triangle. Since I didn't get the record yesterday, I decided to fly the smaller triangle (which is also a somewhat slower record). Paul has a cold and decided not to fly again.

The cu's started early, much earlier than yesterday. The clouds were also quite a bit thicker. The day was looking good, and when the sky looks that good, I have a hard time holding back. The best time to start the task would have been around 2 PM to get the heart of the thermal day (3PM) in the middle of the task. But, I just couldn't hold back and decided to launch at 12:52 PM.

When my vario, while I was on tow, showed 1,100 fpm at 1,000' I pinned off and started climbing out just east of Quest. With the light winds, it wasn't long before I was over 5,000' just north of the Quest waypoint under a dark cloud. Given that the task that I had laid out was 101.1 km, I needed to go through the FAI sector at each waypoint. I couldn't just use the 400 meter cylinder around each waypoint as 800 meters is subtracted from each leg, making my triangle just a bit too small if I used that method. I would have to go around each waypoint..

My task was an FAI triangle from Quest southeast to the intersection of Interstate 4 and highway 27, then west to the intersection of Dean Still and Rockridge, and back to Quest. These are standard turnpoints for tasks from Quest Air and Wallaby Ranch (when there is a competition there). Fortunately they were ideally placed for a 100 km FAI triangular task when combined with Quest Air.

I headed out from the Quest turnpoint point high at 1:04:34 PM with plenty of clouds lining up in front of me going toward Wallaby Ranch and the turnpoint just beyond it. The going was good as I used the cu's ahead to tell me the direction to go along the course line. After ten miles I noticed that the lift was not really all that well organized under the clouds. Few solid cores.  Mostly it seemed to be made up of little bullets of lift and searching around really didn't make it any better.

After I found a good core 10 miles out from the turnpoint (the first leg is 24 miles), I drove under a long row of clouds on the west side of highway 27 only to find minimal lift in an area that looked like it should have good lift. A couple of miles from the turnpoint I decided to try getting under some pilots turning near Wallaby. The lift was just too weak, so I ran for the turnpoint and then back to Wallaby, where I found much better lift and got back to 5,500'.

It took too long to get to the first turnpoint, 50 minutes, and I wasn't feeling too good about the chances of setting the record. Now I wanted to get back successfully, and maybe I would be able to do well also. With the wind 4 mph out of the west it was a slight headwind getting to the next turnpoint.

Winds over the whole task.

Fortunately I got high enough and there were plenty of clouds so it was a breeze getting to the intersection at the southeast end of the Green Swamp. Six miles out at 4,900' I went on glide toward the cloud over the turnpoint. There was a nice looking cloud along the course line passed the turnpoint, so it looked good to me.

Down to 3,200' at the turnpoint I followed the clouds to the northeast, but not the ones over the Green Swamp as I felt I was too low to give that direction a try. That was the best direction but I wasn't hitting any lift yet so I couldn't turn left and head over the trees. I found weak lift and watched a deliberately set swamp fire to my northeast to see if it would be a good idea to get over the smoke (I couldn't see any fire).

I worked some weak lift under a big cloud then raced for the smoke. Just beyond it I found a strong core that looked like it went as high as the semi-nasty looking cu above it. After climbing to 4,700', with a glide ratio of a little less than 15:1 over the next thirteen miles to Quest, I went on glide. There were plenty of cu's ahead but I was skeptical about being able to find lift that I could actually work. I was just hoping that I wouldn't find strong sink as I needed all the altitude I had to make it in.

I also needed to get a move on. No more thermalling. Just race toward goal and get there as fast as possible in order to have a chance at the record. I had already wasted time taking a course off the course line and I needed to make up for that.

I glided all the way and came into Quest lower than I had ever come in before (but then I am a sissy and usually come in high). It was very exciting looking at fields that I might have to land in if things got out of hand in the sink department. I was still plenty high at 300 feet.

Looking at the record after the task, I found that I had set the record. I also found something else interesting.

My climb rate averaged 390 fpm, which is quite high (I've looked at a lot of track logs). So even though I found lots of weak broken lift, I did find some strong cores and that was enough to give me a high average climb rate. In fact, every thermal that SeeYou identified as a thermal was strong (300+ fpm). So I guess I really didn't start turning unless I was in good lift.

To fly a 63 mile task I flew 72 straight miles while not thermalling (which really slowed me down). I averaged 43 mph while flying straight. Flying closer to the course line (as long as the lift was there) would have improved my speed considerably.

I flew straight 73 percent of the time, and this was a very high ratio, and why it was possible to set the record. I spent a small portion of the time on the task thermalling, and that helped considerably.

SeeYou displays the winds on each leg of the flight. This is great. They showed that I had a good head wind going south on the first leg, then a light head wind on the leg going west, then a side wind (again from the west) going north east back to Quest. I flew east at first (and felt the tail wind) after the second turnpoint and then flew north (with the side wind). I've often felt that each leg a triangle is into a head wind, and how I can see from SeeYou that in this case it was two out of three.

This was my first record flight that I've attempted to validate with just a GPS (Flytec 5030) instead of my IGC certified datalogger. I much appreciate the ease of use that this allows under the new CIVL Sporting code 7D.

None-the-less, I won't be sending my IGC file into the NAA and CIVL for homologation and to be made into an official world record. I have done this plenty of times before, in fact on my original speed around the 100 km FAI triangle record set in 2000 at the meet in Hearne, Texas. That record was set in a meet and actually was quite difficult to do at the time.

The reason I won't be sending it in, is that in the US, and in the US only, hang glider pilots are required to pay $350+ to have a record homologated (in our case by the NAA). The FAI charges a little less than $100 US, and that fee seems reasonable, but the NAA fee is a deterrent to me and others. Hang glider pilots in other countries are subsidized (slightly) by their national organizations for flight homologation. We are ripped off for outrageous fees.

The problem with world records is that few people try to set them. They are a lot of fun to set and are a great way to motivate pilots to stretch their wings. But the many steps that one has to go through with CIVL is a deterrent. It doesn't deter me, as I've set up a procedure to do it, and every one of my records has been homologated.

I would hope that the HOLC becomes that place were records are automatically homologated. We need to do a technical fix (add the task definition to the HOLC) and fix the Flytec 5030 (so it does the task definition correctly in the IGC file). I would love to have this process automated (and the costs greatly decreased). And the barriers reduced. 

BTW, the restricted (red) airspace on the right starts at 6,001'. I was well below that. I think that the HOLC checks for airspace violations in the US now.

BTW, thanks to John Aldridge and CIVL folks for the new rules which allow for GPS usage. This is a great step in the right direction. Now we need to improve upon them. Like, hook up with the HOLC.

You can download the the IGC file here and see what it looks like in SeeYou or CompeGPS.

CIVL Badges, Part 4 »

Fri, Mar 4 2005, 1:00:05 pm EST

Sporting Code

Ø

Øyvind Ellefsen|CIVL|CIVL Badges|John Aldridge|Martin Henry|record|Stewart Midwinter

Øyvind Ellefsen|CIVL|CIVL Badges|John Aldridge|Martin Henry|record|Stewart Midwinter

Stewart Midwinter «stewart.midwinter» writes:

In parts 1-3 of this series, I described the overhaul of the CIVL Badge system. The definitive text and full details of the system are of course contained in the Sporting Code, Section 7D, which will become effective May 1st of this year. In this article, I want to describe some of the other changes that you will see in the new release of S7D. The full text will be available shortly on the CIVL website, after review by John Aldridge.

The badges and records subcommittee, under the leadership of CIVL V-P Scott Torkelsen from Denmark, undertook the review of the badge system, but also reviewed all of S7D itself, with a view to streamlining and simplifying GPS usage. In this task, a number of people were involved: Oyvind Ellefsen from Norway, Ágúst Guðmundsson from Iceland, Martin Henry from Canada, and myself. (Hmm, all Nordic countries, what a coincidence!). Martin was awarded two FAI world records late last year in the rigid wing category, and as a result of his records chase he has gained intimate knowledge of some of the contradictions and confusions still remaining in S7D, as regards GPS usage. Here are the major changes developed by this subcommittee, and approved by the Plenary.

1. The preferred instrument for all flight verification is the 3D GPS. By 3D, we mean one that records altitude in the tracklog. All of the Garmin eTrex series meet this requirement (though the basic yellow one and Summit model are to be avoided), as do some of the Magellan and MLR models, to name a few. Recommended models would include eTrex Vista, Gecko 301, and GPS76S, as these three models include glide-angle software that's helpful in badges, records and comps.

CIVL won't publish a list of approved instruments, as that list changes monthly. But you can be confident that any recent model will do what you want. If in doubt, test your GPS with the software listed further below. Or, consult the recommended list on the CompeGPS website, here: http://tinyurl.com/3lu9k, or here: http://www.compegps.com/new/support.php?var=hardware&tipoweb=3&flash=1.

2. You can still use one of the older 2D GPS models, like the Garmin 12, *if* you also use a vario with a barograph in it. Naturally, this will complicate your badge claim process somewhat. You can also use an IGC Flight Recorder if you have one, but this type of expensive instrument is not required in our sport. Lastly, cameras are out. They will not be required or accepted for flight verification. Never thought you'd see the day, did you?

3. The old requirement to have your flight instrument calibrated in a pressure chamber has been dropped. Clearly, it makes no sense to calibrate a GPS in such a way when its altitude information comes from satellites, not pressure readings.

4. For badge claims, you will not require an official observer. In many countries, this requirement created a huge barrier because there were few OOs. Instead, you can use your flight claim on HOLC for verification (more on this below). For records, of course, an official observer is still required.

5. For badge flights, no pre-flight declaration is required. For record flights, you still need to make a declaration. You can do this in your GPS by making a route, and having your OO witness that. Or, you can fill out the paper declaration form and have the OO sign that. If you use an IGC flight recorder, the declaration can be made right in the instrument. For records, part of the pre-flight procedure will include the OO verifying that your tracklog has been cleared prior to takeoff.

6. In all badge and record flights, you will use cylindrical turnpoint "observation zones", rather than pie-shaped sectors, to prove you completed the task. These Ozs (the same name as the Oz Report is just a coincidence!) Always have a radius of 400m for badges and records; in competitions, they may be larger. If you have an IGC flight recorder, you may still use a pie-shaped sector, but why would you want to?

7. For badges, after your flight you should turn off the recording feature of your GPS, then turn off the GPS. This will avoid extraneous data points being recorded when you turn it on later. You then upload your tracklog to a PC (there are Windows, MacOS and Linux applications available) and save it as a secure .igc file.

In Windows, use of a simple freeware app like MaxPunkte or GPS Dump is recommended. The former will record your personal information and the .igc tracklog into a .olc file, so that filing the claim is simplified. If you participate in the HOLC, you then go on-line and file your claim. If you have a .olc file, this step is very easy - upload one file, and press the "Claim flight" button. A good PowerPoint presentation of every step of the flight claim process may be found here: http://tinyurl.com/62hh9 or here:

8. Under the guidance of Rudl Berger, this year HOLC will be adding a software feature to record a pilot's best distance, altitude gain and duration. This means that at year's end, all a federation has to do to issue badges is to look on the HOLC site and see for each of its pilots who has meet what badge requirements. Organizers of other on-line contests may want to take note and do something similar.

9. Naturally, in order to meet the altitude gain element of the badge claim, or claim a national or world record, you will need to use a 3D GPS or barograph. If you are using a 3D GPS, it's up to you to ensure that you are locked on to enough satellites to get a good altitude fix. It's also up to you, if you use a GPS model with both satellite and barometric altitude readings, to ensure that you understand and account for any difference between these two at the moment of topping out in your thermal. This will be especially important if you trying for the diamond badge, with its difficult 3000m altitude gain requirement.

10. Section 7D also spells out the type of task that may be used for the distance requirement of the badges. For bronze and silver, you must use straight-line open distance. For gold, diamond and diplomas above those, you may use any type of task including open distance, out-return, zigzag, flat triangle, FAI triangle or polygon (with 3 turnpoints). Not that if you fly a closed course, the distance credited is the shortest distance it was possible to fly, e.g. for an out-return distance, it would be distance between the turnpoints - 2 x 400m TP radius.

This covers the main points of the changes in Section 7D, which were intended to simplify the use of GPS for badge and record claims. This concludes the four-part series on the new CIVL badges. If you have any questions, please send them my way, or to anyone in the subcommittee.

(editor's note: On an out and return task in competition in Big Spring, Texas, My start started at the edge of the exit start circle of 5 miles and ended at the edge of the start circle coming back to goal. The turnpoint was 400 meters (.25 miles).)

Discuss badges at the Oz Report forum

I like the feel of my ATOS

Mon, Jan 10 2005, 11:00:02 am EST

It feels better to me.

Martin Henry

Martin Henry «gliding» writes:

Flexies (and I've flown a Litespeed, Combat and a Fusion) all give me that "sitting on top of a beach ball" feeling. Whenever the air got big, they all were nervous, pitch quirky and tense.

When I started to settle into flying a rigid, I found the air became decidedly more predictable. The bumps became less disconcerting, pitch (with the tail) was solid. I believe the lack of rigid connection between the control bar and wings disconnects the pilot from twitches in roll, you just don't feel small roll changes so you spend less time stressing about them when they happen.

On a rigid, I have felt far less a victim of the quirks of the wind. Fact is, after a whole summer in Chelan, not once had the air treated me to anything more than a minor annoyance.

I wonder if you have been slipping a little "tail" onto that Litespeed?

Discuss ... at the Oz Report forum

Breaking my records (and setting a new one)

Thu, Dec 9 2004, 11:00:05 am EST

Towing in eastern Washington east of Chelan Butte

Davis Straub|Martin Henry|record|record

From the FAI:

Class 5
Speed over a triangular course of 150 km
Mansfield, WA (USA)
46 km/h
Martin HENRY (Canada)
Air Atos C
July 06, 2004
Previous record : new

Class 5
Speed over a triangular course of 100 km
Mansfield, WA (USA)
42 km/h
Martin HENRY (Canada)
Air Atos C
July 10, 2004
Previous record : 34.47 km/h (16.08.2000 - Davis STRAUB, USA)

Discuss world records at the Oz Report forum

CIVL Bureau - Part 4 »

Fri, Dec 3 2004, 1:00:00 pm EST

Badges and WPRS.

CIVL|CIVL Bureau meeting 2004|Flip Koetsier|John Aldridge|Martin Henry|Scott Torkelsen|World Pilot Ranking Scheme

WPRS continues to discriminate against pilots who live on continents other than Europe. But a little less so.

Martin Henry (Canada) is working with Garmin to standardize the use of GPS and to determine possible security breaches. It does not look possible to harmonize turn point cylinder diameters. Badge requirements need to be changed to more realistic criteria considering advancements in equipment. Related work to be done by email. Action: Flip Koetsier. Scott Torkelsen would like to be relieved of the chair.

WPRS

John Aldridge expressed his concern about the new WPRS and the bonus received by the pilots as a function of the quality of the pilots. A competition validity coefficient differential between Cat 1 and Cat 2 events is also used in the formula so this results in pilots at Cat 1 event being effectively rewarded twice for the higher standard of the meet.

The Bureau will strongly recommend to the HG and PG sub-committees that the coefficient of 0.8 for a Cat 2 event be changed to 0.9 as the first step toward phasing it out entirely. Pilots based on continents where no continental championship is held have less chance of benefiting from the current system than some others. Action: John Aldridge

(The WPRS system is heavily Eurocentric. The only offset is for the Worlds to be held outside of Europe so that they are a bit of a counterweight to the European Championships - both are Category 1 competitions which are heavily weighted in world ranking. There doesn't need to be any weighing other than quality of pilot (which is built into the new WPRS system) at any of these meets.

So why don't we don't we just stop discounting Category 2 meets by a third and count them just based on pilot quality? That would solve all these problems. Pilots would come to the Worlds and the Europeans based on pilots' quality.)

New record for Martin

Wed, Jul 14 2004, 2:00:00 am EDT

Triangle east of Chelan.

Davis Straub|Martin Henry|record

FAI Secretariat «info» sends:

Class O-5
Speed over a triangular course of 100 km
Mansfield, WA (USA)
42 km/h
Martin HENRY (Canada)
July 10th
Current record : 34.47 km/h (16.08.2000 - Davis STRAUB, USA)

(editor's note: This is a bit slower than Martin's previous 100 km triangle record in an Aeros Combat 2 flex wing also set at Mansfield. His 150 km triangle record set the other day does surpass Tomas' record set on a Moyes CSX in 1997.)

Discuss records at the Oz Report forum

Martin in Mansfield

Thu, Jul 8 2004, 3:00:04 pm EDT

How did I manage to overlook getting this rigid wing record?

Martin Henry|record

FAI Secretariat «info» sends:

Class 5
Speed over a triangular course of 150 km
Mansfield, WA (USA)
46 km/h
Martin HENRY (Canada)
July 6th
No previous record

(editor's note: Congratulations to Martin. He has a second home in Mansfield, twenty five miles east of Chelan - away from the fires)

Discuss World Records at the Oz Report forum

CXCC

Wed, Jun 23 2004, 9:00:03 am GMT

Retrievals if you need them.

Chelan XC Classic 2004|Cloud Base Country Club|Jeff Kohler|Martin Henry

Martin Henry «fnglide» writes:

Cloud Base Country Club announces a special service this year. Retrieval service during the "Classic". Contact Jeff Kohler at 509-682-7116 and Jeff will be more than happy to chug out to your landing spot at a breakneck 45mph with his classic 50's International Harvester and get you back to civilization! All you have to do is pay for the fuel! (estimated to be 6-8 mpg. US gallon!). Rigid's his specialty!

The old Tin Cup »

Wed, Feb 11 2004, 12:00:00 pm EST

Bart Doets|calendar|David Glover|James Harris|Joe Evens|John Rankin|Len Szafaryn|Mark Timney|Martin Henry|PG|Quest Air|Richard Williams|Steve Kroop|Tom Pierce|Trevor Birkbeck|Von Welch|William "Billo" Olive

Many Oz Report readers have sent in their yearly donation/subscription lately, as the new year begins. Bill Snyder sent me a note:

I've have been following your site now for five months and I love it. The only meet I attend is the King Mountain meet because I am a poor working stiff.

Click here to see how to support the Oz Report (or scroll down below).

I've also received support lately from the Sandia Soaring Association, Tom Nejame, William Olive and the NSW State and Gliding Titles, paraglider pilot - Len Szafaryn, Mark Timney, Dutch pilot - Koos de Keijzer, the Tennessee Treetoppers sent in an ad (which sure helps), the Florida Ridge, who is swapping meet fees for an ad for the South Florida Championships, Dan Cricthett himself, Trevor Birkbeck, Martin Henry, of course, all the sponsors that you see in the Oz Report every day, on the Oz Report web site, and in the competition calendar and the Oz Report Resource Center, James Harris, John Rankin, Daniel Shoemaker, Richard Williams, Simon A W Kay, Bart Doets, Jorj Lowrey , Charles Joe Evens, Richard Lever, David Glover, Stephan Forslund, David Jorgensen, Ronald P Gleason, Steve Kroop and Flytec, Quest Air, Carlos Bessa, James Harrison, Beverly Taunyee Robbins, James O'Reilly, Tom Pierce, Philip Morgan, Casimir R Wolan, Von Welch, and Morgan Hall.

A good number of Oz Report subscribers were very generous this year and I really appreciate the support. Thanks to all the supporters of the Oz Report.

All the Oz Report contributors (I hope) can be found at https://ozreport.com/supporters.php.

CIVL, Section 7 »

Fri, Aug 8 2003, 1:00:01 pm EDT

CIVL|John Aldridge|Martin Henry|PG|record

CIVL|John Aldridge|Martin Henry|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|PG|record

John Aldridge «john» juror at the upcoming worlds writes:

I read the comments on FAI cylinders and world records by Martin Henry and yourself with interest. At this year's plenary session I formally took over responsibility for Section 7 from Zupy but the really good news was that Anastis Paliatsos volunteered to chair the Records & Badges sub-committee. This has been without any effective direction for a couple of years now - solely because nobody has been interested in taking on the work.

The ambiguity which was highlighted by Pete Lehman's record claim is just one of the matters that has already been referred to Anastis for consideration. I do not know whether or not he subscribes to the Oz Report but I will ensure he gets a copy of your very useful piece on cylinders and records.

You may also remember (from the minutes) that we are committed to splitting up Section 7 in an effort to make it more manageable and readable. Martin suggests that a separate section be devoted to records - and that is planned. The outline structure proposed for the initial split is:

Section 7A - Class 1, 2, 4 & 5 hang gliders, including short course speed events and aerobatics.
Section 7B - Class 3 (paragliders) less Paragliding Landing Accuracy but including aerobatics.
Section 7C - Paragliding Landing Accuracy
Section 7D - Records & Badges

At this point S7A (draft) is being checked to make sure I have not deleted anything which is relevant to the subject - or left too much in that could be removed. I am about halfway through 7B and should get that distributed before leaving for Brasil. That leaves PLA and the Records section to be dealt with.

My aim is to have all sub-sections distributed to the relevant sub-committees by the end of September, hopefully earlier in the month. In the meantime sub-committees and the Bureau will be coming up with proposed amendments to the existing rules which will also have to be incorporated.

I am sure some will be a little surprised at just which rules actually apply to their discipline at the moment - and perhaps feel that some are no longer appropriate. All this will have to be presented to next year's plenary in such a way that delegates can easily distinguish between that which has merely been deleted or moved around in the split and those bits which are new proposals.

It is a big job and I have another life so I am sure you will excuse me if I do not comment on everything in the Oz Report about S7 - but do please carry on highlighting any perceived ambiguities or areas where you or your readers feel the section needs modernizing. I do not guarantee that CIVL will act on every suggestion but they will be considered.

Discuss Section 7 at OzReport.com/forum/phpBB2

FAI Cylinders

Thu, Aug 7 2003, 2:00:05 pm EDT

CIVL|Martin Henry|record|Thierry Montigneaux

FAI - Thierry Montigneaux «thierrym» writes:

Your article on "FAI cylinders and world records" includes a typo error which may cause some confusion (I will not enter here the debate on the perceived confusion in the way SC7 is written).

At some point it says when quoting SC7 3.5.2 (note also that your text incorrectly refers to 3.5.1 instead of 3.5.2):

"... For record attempts, flight data recorders that comply with the IGC (Sporting code section 3) may be used."

SC7 actually reads:

"... For record attempts, flight data recorders that comply with the IGC (Sporting code section 3) STANDARDS may be used."

Note the missing word 'standards' after the brackets. This is quite important as what we are talking about here are the technical standards for the equipment eligible to be used (in practice it refers to the document published at http://www.fai.org/gliding/gnss/tech_spec_gnss.asp), and not the sporting code rules to be followed to evaluate the flight.

As an example, it means that a HG pilot cannot use a Filser LX-20 loaded with firmware version 2.0, as the IGC has tested, found to be in compliance and approved that unit only if loaded with firmware version 3.0 or later (see http://www.fai.org/gliding/gnss/filserlx20.pdf). An *.igc file with a hang glider flight trace will be evaluated using the CIVL SC7 sporting code rules, and not the IGC (Gliding Commission) SC3 rules. The IGC definition of an observation zone is irrelevant here, and I do not think SC7 3.5.2 says anything else.

A final note: I noticed that SC3 Annex C is mentioned in the article. To clear up any misunderstanding, it is important to remember that this document is a companion document to SC3, a guide which provides (I quote the cover page) "...support and examples of means by which the letter and spirit of the Sporting Code [SC3] may be met". It is not a rulebook, but an interesting and useful first try of an FAI Commission at providing explanatory add-ons to sporting code documents.

Martin Henry «fnglide» responds

"Standards" is a minor point, but I made an error on transposing the wording.

I did not make much of an issue of it, but the more critical element of the guide is the phrase "may".... ambiguity... ambiguity. At the very least, using SC3 and its associated guidelines is a footing for a base of standards (this is where we need to clean up SC7 and set some RULES in stone).

Here is an idea that I would like those that are interested to consider. I feel that it is extremely important that the basic principle of a World record task is providing proof that a "declared task" has been completed and is supported by evidence that proves the sector principles have been attained (that the pilot has rounded all of the turnpoints declared or has entered an observation zone that leaves no question that a pilot has successfully navigated a distance no less than the declaration). So....

What if we nail down a "sector policy" for the purpose of a "record claims" (SC3 sectors, 1km radius or a new 250 meter radius cylinder).

From here, we separate the task from a claim. If a pilot wishes to make a claim during a competition, it would be up to the pilot to deal with a records protocol. A smart competitor would position a Start/Finnish sector within the competition Start "cylinder" in a way that would not compromise either the record or the task (No need to use the edge of the start cylinder. Position your "claim" Start/Finnish where you want it).

It would be up to the task committee to accommodate the potential for FAI records by creating a task that could "fit" the potential for claims. This would leave it up to the pilot to decided if they want to pursue both the task and record claims. (This would also get rid of this ridiculous situation of organizers of class one events being responsible for providing proof to the FAI for a claim.) A good organizer could easily provide Lat/Long data for FAI claim starts and it would be up to the competitor to apply them.).

(editor’s note: Well, the point of allowing cylinders is to encourage more folks to go for world records. In this case the folks in a competition. It is also to encourage meet directors or task committees to come up with FAI task for the meet. What Martin proposes undermines this goal. Martin also shares in the desire to encourage more folks to go for world records.

I suggest that we just clear up the ambiguity re start and finish cylinders.)

Discuss cylinders at OzReport.com/forum/phpBB2

FAI cylinders and world records

Wed, Aug 6 2003, 3:00:05 pm EDT

CIVL|Martin Henry|Pete Lehmann|record|US Nationals

CIVL|Lawrence "Pete" Lehmann|Martin Henry|Pete Lehmann|record|US Nationals

CIVL|Lawrence "Pete" Lehmann|Martin Henry|record|US Nationals

Martin Henry «fnglide» writes:

The more I research the issue of cylinders versus sectors the more complicated it gets. Fact is, I still have issues with the use of cylinders, but I have an even bigger issues with the evolution of the Sporting Code. If the "CIVL Plenary changed the rules" they have done a very poor job publicizing the application of those changes.

(editor’s note: CIVL delegates be sure to listen here. Martin is quite correct that the Sporting Code has a bunch of problems. Pete Lehmann has pointed some out and these have been verified by a CIVL appointed review committee. I have used the Sporting Code as Martin points out below, and I will point out the problems.)

If a pilot, uses the current sporting code (Section 7, May 2003), you’ll end up with more questions than answers!

Take for example SC7:

Section 1.5.8 Turnpoints Sectors

A turnpoint cylinder may be specified by GPS coordinates and radius. The record distance will be the minimum distance it is possible to fly by entering the specified sectors.

Ok, appears clear enough, or is it? If you’re digging around in SC7, then head off to Section 3 and check out:

"Section 3.5.1 Exceptions.

Except as stated in 3.5.2.1, a barograph or approved flight recorder shall be used on all record attempts. It must show that no intermediate landing was made and generally substantiate the flight. For record attempts, flight data recorders that comply with the IGC (Sporting code section 3) may be used."

Now, the IGC approved Data Logger is a given, So, dig out the SC3 (Gliding), (the most recent available copy of section 3 is Valid from October 2002) you will read that in sub section 4.6.2, part "f,3":

"…the data record shows incontrovertible proof that the glider was in the observation zone". The observation zone is defined in sub section 1.1.5:

So flip back to 1.1.5 (Got to love the FAI and their love of paper.):

"Observation Zone 1.1.5 The area over which a glider must pass to verify that a way point has been reached (see 4.6.2e). It is a 90 degree sector, having no upper limit, with its apex at the waypoint. This sector is:

For a turn point, symmetrical to and remote from the bisector of the inbound and outbound Legs of the turn point. For a Start Point, symmetrical to and remote from the outbound Leg, For a Finish Point, symmetrical to and remote from the inbound Leg." Further to these rules, the SC3, refers to Annex C:, Section, 9.2 (b.), specifically indicating that SC3 observation zone definition is the only acceptable zone approved for world records.

If we are to use "cylinders" for observation zones, then we need to change all of the rules that control record attempts. We can’t just insert into SC7 the parts we like and ignore the parts that don’t like. The rules must be precise. As you very well put it: "Now the new rule is a bit ambiguous".

(editor’s note: Martin is quoting me here. Yes, the CIVL Sporting Code rule re cylinders and world records is a bit ambiguous. We’ll go into that more below.)

Bureaucratic B.S. is what I can hear most pilots saying. True, but I’m only quoting from the rule book. This "insertion" of cylinders has not been done properly, the associated protocols conflict with the change. The way the rules are written cylinders are not only "ambiguous" they are not valid for world records.

(editor’s note: I wouldn’t go that far, but they are ambiguous.)

My basic premise regarding the current use of cylinders is the fact that they do not meet the following fundamental aspects of the rules:

The "Turn Point" is not declared on the flight declaration (the actual point on the cylinder edge is "theoretical" and "assumed"). The dimensions of the cylinder are not specified (with an extremely large cylinder, the Start and Finish could be separated by a substantial distance, this anomaly could result in the acceptance of a claim that has technically not been completed. For example: With a Cylinder with a 5 mile Radius, it may be possible to "finish" the task up to 10 miles from the start point!) The use of an IGC Data Logger is subject to the application of SC3 protocols (these rules exclude the use of cylinders for world records).

(editor’s note; Martin is making a number of important points here. First, all you have to do now is enter a cylinder around a turnpoint. You don’t have to go around the turnpoint, or through the FAI photo sector behind the turnpoint. Therefore the point where you actually turn is not precisely defined. It is any point on the cylinder circumference.

The distance of the task (say a triangle) is the minimum distance to the edges of the cylinder. The minimum distance specifies certain unique points on the cylinder, but you don’t have to go around those points.

Second, the start and finish cylinder can be quite big. In fact the start cylinder usually is. Now here is where the ambiguity comes in. In competition, the finish cylinder is quite small, say 400 meter radius, while the start cylinder could easily be 8 km, like they were at the US Nationals.

It would seem that the start cylinder and the finish cylinder for a world records should be the same size and that the turnpoint cylinders would be (say if in a competition) the size dictated by the task committee, which could be quite small, say 400 meters. It is unclear if this is what the Sporting Code means. I assume that it doesn’t mean that you can start the first leg at 8 kms out from the start point, and then you have to finish the triangle within 400 meters of the finish point. Doesn’t seem like much of a triangle to me. But, maybe that’s what they mean.

If my premise is true, the world record times for the task would be from the time you leave the 8 km start circle until the time you get back to it. Also the distances would be figured using this big cylinder at the start and finish, as I did in calculating the distance for world records in an article I wrote previously on the US Nationals.

But, of course, the actual competition task uses the small cylinder at goal to determine the finish time.

Third, Martin is right in that with a large start circle, you could start the task on one side of the start circle and finish it on the other, a long ways away. Doesn’t seem like a triangle to him.)

So, at first glance one would assume that I’m just dumping on cylinders for world records. In a way, you bet I am! The change in SC7 has not been thought out, nor is it supported by the associated regulations. We have to make sure that the rules are spelled out before we start "making them up" as we go along. If you’re working with closed course, FAI triangles, the "course" needs to be precise. Not precisely declaring your start and finish point and closing a course a mile away from the start point is just not good enough! (On the lighter side, if you can fit your "cylinder" in a classic SC3 sector, then maybe you have something :)

(editor’s note: I don’t think that this is as big a deal as the ambiguity issue and the other issues re the irregularity of the rules that Martin points out.)

The big reason cylinders have crept into the picture is the fact that nearly all of the consumer based GPS systems can handle navigation by cylinder (you don’t need to have a IGC logger to enter a meet, mind you I see very little reason why these very same consumer based GPS' s could not soon incorporate firmware that can apply FAI sector protocols). This has been a major step forward for contest organizers around the world.

(editor’s note: Actually, cylinders are used in competition because with a GPS it is a lot easier to know when you have entered a cylinder then it is to know when you have circled around a turnpoint. All you have to do is look at the distance to waypoint on your GPS screen to know that you’ve entered the cylinder from any direction.)

The problem is contest protocols and closed course speed record protocols are different in nature (While a great big start cylinder is fine for keeping a bunch of hyperventilating competition pilots from running into one another, it is not accurate enough to assure the fundamentals of a FAI closed course speed attempt.) The solution to this is to load your IGC recorder using the SC3 protocol and fly your competition task using the contest rules (In advance, declare a start point on the Start cylinder, then set up your record attempt around that point.)

(editor’s note: I set the FAI 100 kilometer triangle record in a competition a couple of years ago by starting at the center of the start circle and racing to the edge. This was a bit of a disadvantage, as other pilots might have been able to sit on the edge of the 5 mile cylinder, get high and then start the race, while I had to start the race 5 miles back and hopefully time it to cross the cylinder circumference at or after the start time, at most likely a lower altitude than they.

I also had to make it back to the start point and go around it, while the finish line was in fact closer than the start point.)

If competition organizers want to promote "World Records" (which I'm 95% in favor of), then lets get the SC7 Cylinder rule "change" nailed down so that it complies with historical rules that originally controlled FAI closed course records. (5% of me still thinks that, Paris being chased by a pack of hungry competitors gives him a "slight" advantage over "solo" record chasers.)

(editor’s note: I’d just be happy with clearing up the size of start and finish cylinder’s problem ambiguity.)

One thing is for sure, it’s about time that the Hang Gliding Sporting code incorporate a complete update with a section devoted to World Record protocols. Searching around through sections SC7, SC3, Annex SC3 b+c and just for the heck of it the "General" section is a real pain in the ass and does absolutely nothing for promoting performance in our sport.

(editor’s note: I’ve suggested to Martin that he become the Canadian CIVL rep. All he (or anyone else for that matter) has to do, is write up the proposed changes in the CIVL Sporting Code and send them to the CIVL Bureau with a request that they get approved by the Bureau and put on the CIVL Plenary agenda.)

I think I'll end this rant with a beer. Hmmm, the can looks very much like a cylinder, better make it a 90 degree slice of mom's apple pie with a big scoop of ice- cream right in the old "SC3" sector!

Just as a side note to my rant on cylinders. Your OR speed claim should be considered "valid". (This is in contradiction to my stand on cylinders). Just because the rules are poorly written, does not mean you should have to loose your claim. Fact is, your OR claim is defensible, and should be accepted based on "in good faith" sportsmanship. (Although, you were getting well off the course line at the cylinder edge. )

What does need to be addressed is the "ambiguity" of the cylinder rule and whether or not it is appropriate for record claims and like I said update SC7 to include all the facts and all the procedures (perhaps its time to generate a Annex for SC7?).

Things are also not perfect in the land of "sectors". I'm unable to locate any current wording that defines the radius of the sector. Best as I can figure it is infinite. This makes it easy to be in sector. Unfortunately it makes it impossible to leave sector (I personally set my sectors at 1km radius, based on an old photograph standard from back in the 90's. (The Colibri defaults to a 2km sector).

The 1km rule was introduced to prevent competition pilots from making absurd sector claims by getting into a sector miles from the apex at the 89 worlds. I defended such a sector claim for one of our team members. He had to be at least 10km from the apex at the time of the sector photo.

Discuss cylinders at OzReport.com/forum/phpBB2

2003 Canadian/Aeros Record Encampment

Sun, Jul 27 2003, 5:00:02 pm EDT

Martin Henry|record|weather

Martin Henry «fnglide» writes:

Just thought I would pass on the results of "our" little record encampment this year in Central Washington. For the past 12 years, my wife (Mia Schokker) and myself set up a tow operation from the town of Mansfield Washington. With the help of a few friends, (including permission of the NAA to use Canadian FAI Official Observers) we set out after FAI triangle speed records. This year, with the help of Aeros, we were both set up with some of the best gear possible. Mia on a Combat 2/13 and I on a Combat 2/14 with both of us using the new Viper harness.

I firmly believe that the farmlands east of Chelan offer some of the worlds best conditions for record setting. (Oh sure there are better places out there, but if you can handle high Washington "bump" factor, and want to fly triangles that are 150km or less. I would stack the place up against anywhere in the world. On just the right day!)

Unfortunately, the one thing that I have learned through the years is if you’re going to pursue records you’re at the mercy of the weather! Closed course triangle speed records can be even more fickle… A FAI triangle, with its 28% leg rule is the great equaliser. It takes a very special day to pull off a big one (or a fast one).

This year was a combination of too many blue days, slow rates of climb, south winds and the occasional days with the all too familiar "forest fire smoke". For those not familiar with the area, smoke and high cloud have an interesting effect on flying out on the flats, it often results in much smoother air, a nice change from the usual industrial texture that is the norm, mind you with the smooth air comes the slow climbs. Not conducive to speed attempts.

Even with these "challenges" it did not stop our efforts. In the 3 weeks of our encampment (July 1st to 21st), I completed a 150km attempt (way too slow to challenge the current speed record) and came close to completing the same course several more times but speed ended up putting me down, out on the course line.

Mia completed a 100km attempt on what looked like the perfect day, unfortunately a tricky first leg ended up compromising the average for the course speed. Mia also experienced a reality of record chasing. While out on a 100km-triangle attempt that the batteries on her Colibri Data logger went dead. As it turned out, the unit had not been turned off since the previous day’s flight.

As she was coming into the first turnpoint she announced that something was wrong, the display had gone blank, hmmm not good. For those not familiar with the Colibri, you need to plug the power supply in to activate the recorder and unplug the power supply to turn it off. It’s very easy to pack up the unit without unplugging the power. The best lesson learned here is make sure your batteries are fully charged and ready to go. Personally I would prefer a fail-safe key pad "off/on" system (similar to the old Aircotec Primus, push and hold, with audible warning, to control the power supply….).

Mia, although disappointed with the "problem", pressed on around the course line using her Etrex for navigation after all; the flying is what is all about in the long run. The funny part about this flight was half way around the course Mia joined up with her "official observer" Nick Voss (enjoying a flight on his new Discus). With the data logger dead, the flight rapidly turned into leisurely trip back to goal a shameful display of slow racing. Bloody tourists!

 

(Nick Voss, Canadian O.O. up on the "Rig")

 

(Canadian OO "Luc" on Just the right day?)

This year ended with no records being claimed (except for the unofficial "Scotch" consumed in a single evening!). But just like in previous years, the records are secondary. The airtime and time spent with friends is the key, besides there is always next year!

 

(South Winds and the Evening Wave, Near Mansfield WA. The clouds on the bottom right are from a fire that was started on June 30th and continues to burn.... it is expected to cross the border back into Canada in the next few days!)

I would like to thank GW at U.S. Aeros (and the Aeros factory) for their support along with the people of Mansfield Washington for making us feel welcome in their little community. I would also like to thank the U.S. National Aeronautical Association (Art Greenfield) and our small crew of fellow Canadian pilots that tag along in support of our efforts.

Discuss chasing world records at OzReport.com/forum/phpBB2

How we do things in Canada

Mon, Jul 14 2003, 2:00:03 pm EDT

badge|CIVL|cost|FAI|government|HPAC|insurance|job|Martin Henry|NAA|record|Stewart Midwinter|USHGA|Vincene Muller|Will Gadd|world record

Vincene Muller <fly@mullerwindsports.com> writes:

I read the posts on the cost of US sporting licenses and record ‘applications.’ In Canada we have a different system. The fees for members of the Hang Gliding & Paragliding Association of Canada (HPAC) are as follows:

Aero Club of Canada Sporting Licence $55 CAD – a pilot must be a member of HPAC

Fee breakdown is $50 to the Aero Club and $5 to HPAC for paperwork

(editor’s note: This is a similar fee to what US pilots pay to the NAA for a Sporting License. A Sporting License is only needed for FAI Badges, World Records, and CIVL sanctioned competitions.)

FAI Badges, Canadian & World Records $10 CAD - paid to HPAC for paperwork.

The Aero Club of Canada does not charge a fee.

(editor’s note: This as compared to the $275 fee that the NAA charges to homologate records. I’m not arguing that the fee isn’t reasonable given the work required to homologate a record, just that it doesn’t encourage World Record attempts by hang glider pilots, and appears to be much higher than that charged by other countries.)

The FAI charges 100CH (approx. $70USD) for world records processed. I don’t think there is a fee if the record is invalid. This fee has been in effect for the last two years. It is not an unreasonable fee. HPAC has in the past paid this fee for Canadian World Records however in the future this cost will be paid by the pilot as most of the HPAC membership fees go toward insurance payments. HPAC and Canadian pilots have no government funding or assistance for records or attending World Championships.

(editor’s note: And who was charging Canada with being a socialist country?)

The HPAC Office has never handled record and FAI badge applications. This is looked after by a volunteer committee. I have been chairperson of that committee since 1987. I currently have two committee members, Stewart Midwinter (who was the CIVL Committee Chair for several years & knows everything about record procedures) and Ted de Beaudrap. Stew and Ted look after checking the record claims (this is the difficult job) and I just look after the paperwork.

Canada, which has not a lot of hang glider and paraglider pilots, has four current world record holders, Mia Schoker, Martin Henry (Hang Gliding), Jim Neff (Hang Gliding, Rigid Wing) and Will Gadd (Paragliding).

Maybe a volunteer committee would be the answer to cutting the high fees for US pilots attempting record flights. Through your efforts there are many more US pilots interested in record flights. They have become very knowledgeable on the wording in the FAI sporting code. Might be time for some to step forward and volunteer. USHGA could possibly consider a new committee at their next meeting. The committee could then deal with the NAA & FAI.

(editor’s note: What Vincene doesn’t mention here are the dues that the HPAC pays to the Aerocclub of Canada. I wonder what they are. Also, it is not clear that the NAA would allow us to homologate the records ourselves. They use to charge us a fee even when we would homologate them through the SSA.)

Discuss CIVL at OzReport.com/forum/phpBB2

Discuss "How we do things in Canada" at the Oz Report forum   link»

FAI sectors

Sun, Jun 22 2003, 9:00:03 pm EDT

CIVL|competition|FAI|GPS|Martin Henry|record|track log|triangle|world record

The new CIVL/FAI Section 7 Sporting code has a new definition for turnpoint sectors that allows for the use of cylinders, for example, in a competition, for world record flight purposes:

1. 5.8.2 Turnpoints Sectors

A turnpoint cylinder may be specified by GPS coordinates and radius. The record distance will be the minimum distance it is possible to fly by entering the specified sectors.

World record holder Martin Henry replies:

I personal could care less about whether or not a cylinder or a FAI sector is used, but…

The use of the cylinder does pose an interesting scenario. Given that the actual measurement of the declaration is determined by the "nearest" point on the cylinder, it then becomes possible to cross the radius of the cylinder (and by definition, establish a valid cylinder "fix") and NOT have correctly established a traditional sector "fix" (the 90° area created by the course lines).

Additionally, the "fix" point in the cylinder may not fall within the geometry rules of the declaration (i.e.: the 28% rule) when for the sake of argument the closest point may fulfill the task requirement. Of course it is not likely that these few yards of discrepancy would result in an invalid task, but the potential exists.

Also, it’s not just a point of being picky about a few yards here or there, it is the principle of following the traditional elements of a declared task that is a record has been established by the completion of a task that has followed the precise control elements, elements that were used by the current record holder. (In other words, if a record established using the traditional sector rules is broken, the same 90° sector rule needs to be maintained.).

To make my point, several years ago, Mia Shokker (my life time flying partner, unfortunately for her) had declared a task. Her final glide into goal was extremely close. Fact is, she landed parallel to the course line, just short of the sector and past what would have been defined as the goal coordinates (no more than 100 yards from the goal). She easily would have crossed the radius but not attained the traditional "sector". Her record was denied, by the "1.5.8.2 Turnpoints Sectors" wordings her record would have been valid.

On the other hand, if the track log is being compared with the traditional sector rules, basing the sector positions on the "closest" cylinder "points" then the use of the cylinder is acceptable as a control factor, but very confusing. A pilot may fly into the cylinder only to find that a sector had not been attained.

For myself, I will stick with the traditional sectors they are straight forward and leave no possibility of being misinterpreted.

(editor’s note: The new rules seem quite reasonable and understandable to me, and I’m happy for their existence, otherwise my world record from yesterday wouldn’t have been valid. Luckily I made the triangle a little bigger than 50 km, so that the least distance was still greater than 50 km.)

Discuss world records at OzReport.com/forum/phpBB2

Discuss "FAI sectors" at the Oz Report forum   link»

IQ–Compeo – not FAI certified

Sat, Jun 14 2003, 2:03:03 pm EDT

battery|certification|FAI|Flytec 5030|Martin Henry|record

Martin Henry <fnglide@uniserve.com> writes:

Thought I would pass on an observation re the IQ-Compeo. It’s a minor point of concern, but until the device has been FAI certified, it is not a valid data logger. I have no idea how complicated the process is that results in the FAI shaking on the Holy water that certifies the unit but I do know that the process is lengthy and bureaucratic.

Under the old name, Brauniger was "working on" the certification last season… and they are still working on the process now… I'm sure that unit will eventually get the golden seal of approval at some point in time, but a record established using an uncertified recorder would (should) be rejected.

I know that the FAI rules can be excessively bureaucratic, but at least it’s nice to know that there are rules to be followed (and everybody has to follow the same rules). I to like the idea that the IQ-Compeo could package up all my avionics into a nice neat package, but I'm not willing to risk a record claim to an uncertified logger. (One other point, If the IQ-Compeo is certified, then the certification is only valid for the firmware submitted. If Brauniger has to tweak the firmware to accommodate a certification, the certification will only be valid for that version).

Perhaps I missed your comments, but does the IQ-Compeo use FAI sectors? All that I have ever heard mentioned is cylinders. As far as I know, FAI records have always been flown via the Sector rules. Does the firmware of the IQ-Compeo include "sector" setups?

(editor’s note: yes.)

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the success of this instrument… twice now I have looked into purchasing it, only to be told that the certification was not done. So for me, it’s my faithful Colibri, battery pack and all.

Discuss the Flytec 5030/IQ-Compeo at OzReport.com/forum/phpBB2

Discuss "IQ–Compeo – not FAI certified" at the Oz Report forum   link»

More Thanks

Fri, Feb 21 2003, 8:00:00 pm GMT

Bart Doets|Brad Kushner|Dave Brandt|Douglas Coster|Gilbert Griffith|James Rowan|Jose Antonio Mejía|Larry Jorgensen|Malcolm Jones|Marc Breton|Martin Henry|Matt Carter|Mauricio Brittingham|Michael Novak|Nancy Smith|Neville Almond|Randal Frazer|Raven Sky Sports|Richard Larson|Richard Mullins|Robert "Bob" Franklin|Scot Trueblood|Stephen Rudy

Oz Report readers have been very generous, many of them way beyond my expectations. Thanks to all of you.

On Thursday night and Friday, I received support from: Richard Mullins (“Where I get almost all my HG news. I'm just jealous because you get to do all this stuff while I sit at my desk and read about it…”), Marc Breton (snail mail, Québec, Canada, “I appreciate it very much and during the winter it help me because it's our dead season here in Québec, Canada { temperature between -30 to -40°C were frequent during the last 3 weeks). I have been dreaming about going in Australia for such a long time, so you can understand the description of your flight there make me happy. Anyway, I read it from the start to the end every day and hope your report will last forever. It's really awesome.”), Dave Brandt ($20, snail mail, “It's fundraiser week on our public radio station and I could not help but reflect on the value services such as public radio and the Oz Report, $20.00 is a great value! But what about pledge gifts?????? The Oz Report coffee mug or lexan wine glass.”), Larry Jorgensen ($20), Bob Franklin ($50, “Excellent job on the Oz Report… It's my #1 read”), James Rowan (“Thanks for the pleasant distraction and occasional bits of useful information.”), Douglas Coster, Mauricio Brittingham ($50, “Keep up the good work.”), Martin Henry (Canada), Nancy Smith (pledge, $20, “I really appreciated your reporting my accident last year. The support I received from your readers meant a lot to me, and I never have really thanked you.”), Scot Trueblood (pledge), Richard Larson ($25, “I haven't flown in 10 years {wife, then children, career, etc.) but I follow the Oz Report and your exploits religiously. Your insights, perspective, and journalistic talents are very enjoyable.”), Matt Carter (“PG pilot here, thanks for all your skillful reporting over the years.”), Jose Antonio Mejía (snail mail, Columbia), Randal Frazer (“I don't even fly! Yet. Got hooked by spending a coupla days at Wallaby last spring watching my brother fly and love the stories especially at the WRE.”), Brad Kushner, Raven Sky Sports, Neville Almond, (pledge, UK), Stephen Rudy ($30, “I have been reading the Oz report for three years, and I figure it is well worth a $10 annual subscription.”), Bart Doets (snail mail, Holland), Michael Novak ($20, “Keep up the faith. You are the only consistent source of USA and World Hang Gliding News {with my american slant) and the only journalist I have ever personally met.”), Malcolm Jones (pledge. $20), Gilbert Griffith (much support and a pledge, rejected by me due to all his past support)

Thanks again to all of you who support the Oz Report and continue to do so.

See below on how to send in $10 to help support/subscribe to the Oz Report. I’m looking forward to thanking every one in the Oz Report.

Discuss "More Thanks" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Two World Records in the family

Sat, Dec 14 2002, 9:00:09 am EST

Mark Dowsett|Martin Henry|record|Tomas Suchanek

Mark Dowsett «mark» writes:

Congrats also goes out to both Martin and Mia…I understand this is the first time a married couple has ever held ratified World Records at the same moment.

Class 1
General Category
Speed over a triangular course of 100 km
Mansfield, WA (USA)
44.1 km/h
Martin HENRY (Canada)
Combat 2-14
24.07.2002
Previous record : 40.54 km/h (10.12.00 - Tomas SUCHANEK, Czech Republic)

Discuss "Two World Records in the family" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

Update on Tandem Accident

Wed, Sep 4 2002, 12:00:06 pm EDT

Martin Henry|weather

John "Ole" Olson|Martin Henry|weather

(?-i)John "Ole" Olson|Martin Henry|weather

Martin Henry|weather

Martin Henry «fnglide» writes:

Here is an update of the investigation into theAugust 17th 2002 dual fatality tandem flight atFortLangley BC.

I would like to say that we know the cause of this accident, but it continues to be a mystery. What is known is the following.

This was a normal instructional flight, using a Double Vision Tandem glider, flown in the upper lower tandem configuration. The student had enough experience that he had moved to the bottom tandem position with the instructor using the top position. The glider was being towed by a Moyes Tug (912S modified) and was using a standard V bridal system with both upper and back up lower releases and a tow line length of around 300'. The flight plan includes a 1000-ft release altitude, for instructor/student training. From take-off to the 1000-ft altitude the flight appeared "normal".

Weather conditions were good. No unusual turbulence had been detected during earlier tows to 2500ASL.

At or near the release altitude the glider violently departed from tow in what appears to be severe left lock-out. The "lock-out" may or may not have been the result of loss of control or aircraft failure.

The tug pilot indicated that he had just completed a shallow right turn and the tow was "normal" then there was a sudden increase in tow pressure at which point the weak link at the tugs end failed. (The force of the event bent the upper unsupported section of the tugs bridal attachment point, at which point the tugs weak link failed).

At this point in time it is not known why the hang glider’s weak link did not fail. Inspection of the hang glider’s tow components confirm that the weak link was present and had not failed. (At the crash site the weak link was found released from the upper release, this may or may not be the result of being released by either of the pilots but may have been the result of releasing at impact).

After departure from tow, the hang glider entered a severe left "wing-over", followed by a very steep spiral decent. It is believed that during the initial stages of decent the hang glider became tangled in the towline with a substantial amount of towline becoming tangled in the left wing. At some point during this descent, at a very low altitude, the emergency parachute was deployed. Inspection of both the parachute and the deployment system indicates that a pilot (unknown) had successfully deployed the parachute but at too low an altitude to open. Next the glider "clipped" a tree then impacted at a steep angle in a pasture.

Damage at impact is extreme. It has been difficult to determine at what point any given component has failed. My preliminary evaluation of this crash indicates that the hang glider appears to have maintained its basic structural components until impact. Sail damage is so extensive it may not be possible to determine if a sail failure during the flight may have contributed to the accident.

During a careful inspection of the hang glider, a serious issue has been discovered that may or may not have contributed to this crash. The discovery of metal fatigue on the gliders landing gear/control bar combination has resulted in the need to post the following:

Important Airworthiness Notice.

The following notice applies to any Owner/Operators that are using Tandem Hang Gliders. This notice is not type specific but does apply to any gliders that have been fitted with any form of fixed wheels where the wheels are being used as the sole or primary landing system (castor type, slip on, or any other type that may be mounted to or over the stock or modified base tube).

Gliders fitting this description should not be flown until the following actions have been taken:

Any hardware associated with the mounting of wheels to the base tube should be removed and an inspection should be made to assess airworthiness of the base tube. Critical concerns include metal fatigue such as cracks in any of the components associated with this assembly. Particular attention should be paid to any areas of "sleeving" and or any areas where bolts or rivets may intersect such sleeving.

PLEASE NOTE: any suspicious damage should be completely evaluated. If over-sleeving is preventing proper inspection, sleeving must be removed to properly evaluate structural reliability.

Failure to inspect and correct any defect may result in catastrophic failure. Where practical, installation of an internal backup cable should be considered.

For any further information on this notification or for any individuals that may wish to contribute information pertaining to the accident currently under investigation, please contact Martin Henry.

The Aerial Adventures Accident

Tue, Aug 27 2002, 9:00:04 am GMT

Aerial Adventures|HPAC|Martin Henry|fatality|Bill Woloshnyiuk|Victor Cox

Martin Henry, HPAC Accident Investigator, <fnglide@uniserve.com> writes:

Just a note to confirm that indeed there has been an accident at Aerial Adventures on August 17th. The accident involved one of the schools Tandems (Double Vision), during an instructional flight with a resulting two fatalities (The loss of lives included the instructor, Bill Woloshnyiuk, and his student, Victor Cox).

The exact cause of the accident is not known. What is known is the fact that an "event" occurred at or near the intended release altitude of 1000 ft. The glider departed from tow by breaking the tugs end of the tow line. From this altitude the glider entered an extreme spiral decent with little or no evidence of recovery. A parachute was deployed but apparently at too low of an altitude to have been successful.

At this point in time, the investigation is continuing, with all aspects of the tow being evaluated.

For any further information on this accident please contact me.

Discuss "The Aerial Adventures Accident" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Tumbles

Sat, Aug 17 2002, 10:00:05 am GMT

Barry Bateman|Martin Henry|Paul MacCready|Stewart Midwinter|tumble|Bob Ormiston

Stewart Midwinter <stewart@midtoad.homelinux.org> writes:

Well, this is a stream of consciousness type of response to your well-written piece on tumbles. Some of us can remember way back to articles written in the old Ground Skimmer by people like Bob Ormiston and Paul MacCready about flying in turbulence. If I recall correctly, Paul felt that it was unsafe to fly tailless flying wings in the Owens Valley. And he was right!

I've flown flex wings for close to 30 years (well, 28 only), and I also flew rigid wings for a few years of record-hunting. I fly paragliders, and have been a sailplane pilot since about 1987. so this has given me a good variety of viewpoints about unpowered flight. (I also have ultralight and general aviation licences, but they don't help my understanding much, as far as this topic is concerned).

Over the years I've witnesses at least five parachute deployments and have been around when at least three tumbles happened. Three of these were flexwings, and strangely enough two of those cases involved my friend Martin Henry of Abbottsford, BC - though in completely different circumstances. And one involved Barry Bateman of Vancouver, flying near Golden, BC.

One of Martin's tumbles took place at the Canadian Nationals in, oh, about 1991. We were flying near Ashcroft, and the wind picked up to 30-50 km/h (20-30 mi/h), while the thermals were at 1000 ft/min (5 m/s) or more; meet director Barry Bateman eventually cancelled the task. The upper flow was over the tops of the rounded mountains, and I found the air to be very unpleasant. Martin got tumbled near peak-top height, out in the middle of the valley; this indicates that strong horizontal shears are to be avoided (though of course anyone that has flown in the lee of the Sierras knows that already).

The day that Barry went over, I was within a kilometre or two, flying a Swift on one of my world record attempts. He got tumbled near peak-top height in air that was uncomfortably violent and unpredictable even in my Swift. I gave thought to going to land but didn't want to abandon my task (as it was, I got shot down by a strong headwind on the return leg of my task).

The point I want to make is that even though the air was strongly turbulent and unpleasant, I never had the feeling that I would go over. I drew comfort from the fact that my weight would remain relatively fixed with respect to the centre of gravity, thus providing me with a fixed static margin of stability; also, I knew that no matter what my airspeed or attitude (even upside down), I would still retain full pitch and roll control of the aircraft, thanks to the side-stick controlling the elevons. On the other hand, I have had this feeling of impending doom from time to time while flying flexwings. With paragliders, tumbling isn't an issue due to their pendulum stability, but of course there are other issues with paragliders - like being blown backwards.

Similarly, in my years of sailplane flying there has never been a moment when I thought I was going over. It just isn't part of the picture, even when I have flown through gust fronts or have dropped into the rotor of the Rockies lee wave.

No one can continue to fly indefinitely if s/he is always flying with fear. We all have a certain limit of fear, and once we've reached that, one day we wake up and say to ourselves "I just don't want to do this any more". I've seen many friends reach this point over the years.

I think the conclusion we have to draw is that if we want to be around to celebrate 30 years of flying one day, we have to recognize that there are conditions that are statistically speaking not a good bet to fly in. If we don't want to use up our tolerance for big fear, we have to be selective about the days that we fly. If we hear that there is a 30% chance of thundershowers, maybe we should do something else that day. Sure, there might be a 70% chance of no thundershowers, or we might miss the storms that do develop, but why not limit the flying to the really perfect days and instead go climbing, or biking, or kayaking, or something else on those days that don't look quite right. More and more, this is the approach I find myself taking, and I don't regret it.

Discuss "Tumbles" at the Oz Report forum   link»

100 km triangle record

Sat, Aug 17 2002, 10:00:02 am GMT

Martin Henry|record|triangle

Martin Henry <fnglide@uniserve.com> writes:

You’re right, record chasing with the Colibri really goes a long way toward reducing some of the complications involved in attempting world records. With the height control factors now being introduced into the smaller triangle claims, doing it the old fashion way is nearly impossible. Even with a data logger pilots should not get the impression that using a FR (flight recorder) eliminates the need for proper FAI procedures but it sure goes a long way toward simplifying the whole process.

This year, my wife (Mia Schokker) and I, chose the Colibri in combination with Garmin XL12's for navigation. I'm really hooked on the Audible "sector alarm" produced by the Colibri. My only complaint is that the alarm is not loud enough to have the instrument inside the under surface, forcing me to build a flight package that positions the Colibri down near the pilot. (I was passed a tip that involves the adding of a small Radio Shack mini amplifier to pick up and boost the alarm so I can move the drag of the FR pod back up inside the wing). I'm hoping that by next year Brauniger will have the Galileo certified and I can have the whole flight package rolled into one unit.

One thing I would like to pass on to your readers is the idea that chasing records is a real alternative to doing the comp scene. I've been around a long time in the sport, and was getting pretty tired of competitions and was looking for something else that both challenge and fit my resources. (Mind you if meets like the recent Big Springs comp start to pop up, I may venture back for some abuse!)

Having theColumbiaBasin near my back door was a big bonus. In fact, I think, on the right day, the area of my triangle nearMansfieldWA, will be the home of many FAI World 100km triangle speed records. Unfortunately, after many years of flying this area I sadly need to admit that I don't think the real big triangle speed records can be set here…. That is unless Thomas or Manfred decide to prove me wrong.

If the basin is not at your back door, other "hot" spots include Florida (up to the 150 triangle), Texas for the big open distance (perhaps even the big triangles 200 and up) and of course OZ where Thomas blew me away by flying the 300+ triangle (now that’s getting big!). I'm also sure thatEurope has some smok'n triangle venues….

The big "cool factor" in flying the triangles is that when you start to get successful at completing them, you get the pleasure of coming home. Landing back at your start after a good XC is a real bonus. Even when you can't get out on course because of conditions, it teaches you skills that go along way toward future success. Too often pilots let a headwind beat them up yielding to the sinful act of down wind drifting. It was great watching the both the ladies and the rigids at the worlds punching good head winds in most of their tasks.

This year was a real test of patience. As you were aware, the conditions at the worlds did yield a substantial amount of blue/south days. I was having a lot of challenges making the declared course work. One smoky day resulted in a sad 19kmph average around the 100km FAI triangle (well at least it was airtime!) Finally just after the worlds were over we were blessed with some classic cloud flying with good high climbs and bases of around 12 to 13000 Asl. I was satisfied with my record claimed speed, but I know I could go faster. I missed my target speed of a 50kmph average by making at least two key mistakes on course. As I said earlier, the mistakes have given me the challenge to go do it again.

Discuss "100 km triangle record" at the Oz Report forum   link»

New 100 km speed record

Thu, Aug 15 2002, 6:00:02 pm EDT

Alessandro "Alex" Ploner|Martin Henry|record

Aeros Combat|Alessandro "Alex" Ploner|Martin Henry|record

Aeros Combat|Alessandro "Alex" Ploner|Martin Henry|record

Alessandro "Alex" Ploner|Martin Henry|record

A few days (July 24th) after the end of the World Championships in Chelan, Martin Henry who was towing out in Mansfield, just to the east of Chelan (and on the flats where we flew each day), set a new world record for the FAI 100 km flex wing triangle beating both Tomas’s Wilcania record set in 2000 and Bo’s new record in Zapata.

He flew at an average speed of 44.1 km/h (27.4 mph) in an Aeros Combat 2 beating Tomas’ speed of 40.54 km/h (25.2 mph). The record is pending.

For comparison purposes, Alex Ploner was able to fly at an average speed of 35 mph on a 100 km almost FAI triangle in Zapata this summer in his AIR ATOS. Bo flying an Aeros Combat 2 beat Tomas’ world record by flying at a speed of 26.31 mph (OzReport.com/Ozv6n123.htm).

Congratulations to Martin and I’m sure that he appreciates that Colibri data logger.

Flying near Chelan

Wed, May 8 2002, 6:00:06 am GMT

Martin Henry

Martin Henry <fnglide@uniserve.com> writes:

With the worlds just down the road from us, Mia (my better half) was interested in attending the Worlds. Unfortunately, you convert $675USD into Canadian Pesos and $1100 to enter a meet does push up over the top in the "you got to be kidding department".

We both know the Chelan can be an awesome place to fly but the Butte does have a pretty high risk of being "Weathered" out in July (winds can severely limit the tasks being called).

I think these organizers (and future organizers) do need to realize that there is a point when enough has become too much. For us, we can do a lot of record chasing at the end of a towline… for that same $675. (We also get to pass up those day's when we know the bump factor has gone over the top…or is that over the falls?)

Discuss "Flying near Chelan" at the Oz Report forum   link»

MLR

Wed, May 8 2002, 6:00:05 am GMT

Flavio Tebaldi|GPS

Flavio Tebaldi <dclaveno@tin.it> writes:

I think the best pilots should think about buying the best GPS for competition. In the future we’ll have the Brauniger Galileo to resolve all the problems, but now there is a beautiful instrument that works fine. This is the "MLR 24 XC Free Flight".

It stores 8000 points with time interval setting of 1, 5, 10, 20, 30 second. (If you set 5 sec you can record your flight for 11 hours!). It changes to next waypoint in a route only when the pilot has entered into the cylinder around the selected waypoint. (This solves Garmin’s problem in Out and Return Tasks.) You can be sure it is registered in the track log, regardless to the waypoint cylinder diameter you have setup.

It has an integrated approach calculator (indicating glide ratio). It has an extra long battery life. It stores and uploads the tracks in 3D mode and uploads them to PC quickly (38400 bauds), and is therefore sure to make scorekeepers happy.

It supports link with Brauniger IQ/Comp. (the only limitation is that doesn't calculate final approaches, I think is an NMEA output problem). It costs about the same as Garmin 12 XL model. I think that the Garmins are good instruments for outdoors use, but not to flying.

I mentioned to Flavio that is has a reputation of being fragile. He writes:

I confirm that is quite fragile, but resolves pilots problems! It is for free flying. Garmins aren’t. In many ways it is better than Garmin. In long flights, like the ones in WRE, you can record a detailed 3D track and you can see all the thermals that you flew in.

Discuss "MLR" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Pre-Meets

Wed, Apr 11 2001, 5:00:00 pm EDT

Brett Hazlett|Carbon Dragon|carbon fiber|Chris Arai|Florida|George Ferris|Ghostbuster|Manfred Ruhmer|Martin Harri|Martin Henry|Mike Barber|photo|Quest Air|sailplane|weather

Brett Hazlett|Carbon Dragon|carbon fiber|Chris Arai|Florida|George Ferris|Ghostbuster|John "Ole" Olson|Manfred Ruhmer|Martin Harri|Martin Henry|Mike Barber|photo|Quest Air|sailplane|weather

(?-i)John "Ole" Olson|Brett Hazlett|Carbon Dragon|carbon fiber|Chris Arai|Florida|George Ferris|Ghostbuster|Manfred Ruhmer|Martin Harri|Martin Henry|Mike Barber|photo|Quest Air|sailplane|weather

Brett Hazlett|Carbon Dragon|carbon fiber|Chris Arai|Florida|George Ferris|Ghostbuster|John "Ole" Olson|Manfred Ruhmer|Martin Harri|Martin Henry|Mike Barber|photo|Quest Air|sailplane|weather

Day after day of perfectly soarable weather. Cumulus clouds everywhere. Light winds. And lots of competition pilots here checking out their equipment and taking advantage of the conditions. We've been calling tasks and a whole group of pilots will fly together – just like a meet, but cheaper.

Four new Wills Wing prototypes came today. One came yesterday. Production models will be available in six weeks – they ordered the hardware (no longer cutting one offs in the factory) so, as they say, at least that part of the glider is fixed. Looks like there may sill be a few tweaks on the final design that come out of pilots' experiences here in Florida.

Gerolf is here at Wallaby. He along with Mike Barber and Brett Hazlett are fitting WW control frames to one Litespeed after another (they haven't finished making the Moyes carbon fiber control frame). Sugarman just brought in a bag of nicos for the 2 mm (or was it 1.5 mm) wires that they need to fix the control frames.

The Austrians are here and all they had to do was assemble their Laminars. Manfred has 1.5 mm front and back wires on his WW control frame, but they were all the way down to the base tube (well, close). The rest of the Austrians had 2 mm wires. Manfred says they all have to go to 2 mm for the worlds.

We hear that Jim Zeiset had his trailer roll while on the way to Florida. He apparently is still on his way (perhaps even with the trailer). The gliders, which were on the car, seem to be in good shape – and that's what counts.

Mark Mullholland is here at Wallaby with his fully canopied Millennium showing that he's no fool. After he showed up last year to compete in a "faired" but not a canopied Millennium, I wrote that only an idiot would try to compete in Class II in a non canopied Millennium. Guess he took that to heart.

Martin Harri (the Swiss pilot that I linguistically confused in with Canadian pilot Martin Henry in an earlier Oz Report) is here taking a few practice flights.

A couple of days ago we went over a hundred miles to the north at a leisurely pace. I flew for an hour after an 11:30 AM start then landed back at the Ranch and found Chris Arai who was willing to go out and play with me.

The air was rolling with tiny cu's for the first fifty miles until we got to the interchange of I 75 and the Florida turnpike, where it completely changed to solid lift under thick cu's. We flew at a very slow pace, I guess basically because the Litespeed that Chris was flying (in order to get ready to fly the WW prototype) had too much bar pressure. Still it was great to have a very skilled pilot to fly with.

Mark Poustinchan flew 172 miles that day after a late start. Bo mentioned that the clouds seemed to be better to the south than up by Quest. Actually, the clouds where better earlier, but they were better on the south side of I-4.

That day a classic convergence set up (as it was clear that it would from the Windcast). It was really well developed north west of Williston.

I hear that there is just as much activity up at Quest Air in this week before the Flytec Championships as there is here at Wallaby. The Flight Design folks are up there getting the Ghostbuster ready for the big Class II competition (which, of course, could be spoiled by Mark in his ultralight sailplane).

Speaking of sailplanes, Steve Arndt is down here flying his Carbon Dragon. He said that George Ferris was the only hang glider pilot who had been able to core up through him, and I sure wasn't able to. A whole lot of pilots were flying around in this great later evening lift with Steve.

 

 

A custom built ATOS control frame at Quest.

 

Photos by Dave Glover.

I can get it for you cheaper in Europe

Fri, Sep 29 2000, 4:00:01 pm EDT

Martin Henry|Patrick Schwitter|PG|Simon Kay

A number of folks wrote in about the cheaper prices and VAT in Europe. Here's a sample:

Patrick Schwitter «Flyhi» writes:

You are right for the VAT. It is a European tax when you purchase goods in the European community. As maybe you know Switzerland is not in the European community.

When I went to Icaro in Italy to buy my Laminar they deducted the VAT. I just had to send them the proof that I leaft Italy with the glider, proof that you obtain at the Italian custom office. Otherwise they would bill me the VAT. So if you leave Europe for the US it is the same.

And you are right that you can obtain a rigid for a small amount. Here in Switzerland many pilots are buying the small Atos and as the Swiss market is small the prices are low. One Atos went to a good friend of mine for 7'000.-- Swiss francs, but prices are usually 9'000.--Sfrs for one year old gliders. Exchange rate is 1.75 about. So it is $4000 to $5,150. US $

Simon Kay«simon.kay»sends this link on VAT:

http://www.hmce.gov.uk/notices/704-2.htm

Ian Walton«iwalton»writes:

Higher US prices are not limited to rigid wings. Para gliders and ski equipment are significantly more expensive in the states. My telemark boots purchased online from France cost me 1/2 as much as in the states (no VAT or duty). Paraglider price differences can be 25% or more.

VAT is only paid by citizens in the country of purchase. If you are a foreigner you either don't pay it (the case when I order on line) or you get it reimbursed when you leave the country (lots of paper work etc.).

Someone on a PG list today was talking about prices of a certain glider; the Windtech Quarx made in Spain. Dixon White of Airplay in WA has a list price of $3800 USD. Someone pointed to a dealer in Spain where the same glider is 2,062 euros or $1810 USD (this is also about the price a friend of mine expects to pay when he goes to France this fall). Even with 15% VAT its a hugely better deal.

Of course, I also got a message from Martin Henry«fnglide»with this familiar lament from Canadians:

Try buying a rigid wing from Canada! The European manufactures have all decided that they need "North American Distributors" to do their business, totally screwing up the concept of "free trade".

If a glider cost $7000USD (from a dealer in Europe), it will cost a Canadian $12,400CDN landed in Canada, all taxes, brokerage and shipping paid. If we buy the same glider from a US based distributor it will cost us $17,800CDN (including all of the taxes, GST, PST and shipping). We get screwed $5400 just for being Canadians! (to say nothing about just how many more fork-lifts will enter the picture getting said valuable cargo home via a US landing!)

One solution for the manufacture would be to eliminate dealers and distributors and deal direct with the customer. If there is a need, the manufacture could assign a "broker" to contract the sale and service direct. I find it very difficult to believe that it is necessary for a manufacturer to have dealers when you consider (I believe) that none of them have yet to produce beyond 500 units per year. In today's "world" economy, there is nothing unusual about service from a single location on a worldwide scale!

Aerial Adventures comes back on-line

Sat, Aug 26 2000, 10:00:03 pm GMT

Aerial Adventures|Dragonfly|Mark Tulloch|Martin Henry|Quest Air|record

Aerial Adventures|Dragonfly|Ken Brown|Mark Tulloch|Martin Henry|Quest Air|record

Aerial Adventures|Dragonfly|Ken Brown|Mark Tulloch|Martin Henry|Quest Air|record|Russell Brown

Aerial Adventures|Dragonfly|Ken Brown|Mark Tulloch|Martin Henry|Quest Air|record|Russell Brown

Aerial Adventures, www.aerialadventures.com, writes:

Randy Pankew and Mark Tulloch of Aerial Adventures Hang Gliding Ltd are pleased to announce that as of Saturday, August 19, 2000, the aerotow operation at Fort Langley field is back in full operation. A brand new Dragonfly is up and flying and has already done more than 200 tows!

Special thanks go out to: Ken Brown of Moyes America for getting the kit out and on the way to us on the evening of his departure for Greece; Russell Brown of Quest Air for staying up late into the night of departure for the Lone Star Meet to finish the new engine mount; Bob Bailey for running it to the airport for shipping; Powerfin Propellers for putting our order on the Hot List and getting it done in record time; BRS parachutes for also making our replacement order a priority and for putting together the best product package we ever had to deal with; and Monty Drebick for lending us a BRS unit in case ours did not arrive.

Really special thanks go out to all the pilots who spent some of their spare time helping us build the new plane particularly Craig Janes and Martin Henry who put in many days of volunteer work and especially Ray Smith who worked right through his days off and stayed long after he had put in a full day to continue the job. We wouldn't be flying today without everyone's help! THANK YOU !!!!

Discuss "Aerial Adventures comes back on-line" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

Wills Wing nose tang and platform towing

Wed, Jul 26 2000, 12:00:04 pm EDT

Martin Henry|Wills Wing

John "Ole" Olson|Martin Henry|Wills Wing

(?-i)John "Ole" Olson|Martin Henry|Wills Wing

John "Ole" Olson|Martin Henry|Wills Wing

Martin Henry, «fnglide», writes:

I was very concerned to read the posting regarding nose catches and platform launching. Most of my flying is done via a truck mounted winch system and can not accept the comment that the Wills system is a poor catch mechanism (far be it for me an Aeros pilot defending Wills but I do believe that there are a few points should be raised on the subject.)

First of all, nose wire catches (all manufactures). No matter how you slice it, every manufactures goal is to make the procedure of attaching the lower front rigging as simple and as positive as possible. The "key-hole" type tang incorporated with its "safety" stop is a reasonable, simple and very strong catch system. It does require a pre-flight, as would any other catch system. When you introduce a nose tether, it can and will effect any catch system that may conflict with proper routing.

Rather than go into every other type if systems that are out there, I would just like to say that I could probably duplicate a scenario that could cause practically any design to fail. The only "positive" detachable type connection that I believe would be safe would be a tang combined with a bolt, wingnut and safety ring. As we all know, such components would soon be discarded for components that would be considered "user friendly". The practice of routing a nose tether around the keel (aft of the nose plate) and routing it past the nose catch system will eventually result in a failure of the nose catch (no matter what nose catch system is being used).

I believe that the only safe way that a nose tether can be routed is to secure it to the keel structure (looped around the keel, aft of the nose plate hardware) and route it through the nose cone (between the top and bottom nose plates). This moves the attachment point in front of and clear of the nose catch mechanism. This may require minor modification of nose cone (simply unstitching the seam at the appropriate area) and some attention to tether wear that will occur where the tether passes over the bottom plate. This system makes for a very clean attachment and because the tether is routed through the nose cone it is kept in a position that makes it obvious that something is wrong if the tether is accidentally routed around the front flying wires.

One other tip I would like to pass on is regarding the angle of the nose tether from the glider to the release mechanism. Systems where the nose tether drops near vertical to a release should not be used. These systems will create excessive and unnecessary loads into the glider airframe (Unacceptable loads on many topless gliders) This tether should be slightly less than horizontal to no greater than 30 degrees from horizon. I highly recommend that if your towing system is using a release that creates an angle greater than 45 degrees that you take the time to reposition the release so that you avoid unnecessary loads on your glider. Along with excessive airframe stress, a steeply routed tether can cause the front rigging to become extremely slack, adding to the potential for problems with the front catch assembly.

I am very sorry to hear of Tom Clark's accident, but I do believe that it needs to be understood that the practice of routing a nose tether past the nose catch does compromise the design that the catch was originally intended. I hope my suggestions will help reduce the odds that such an incident could occur again.

(editor's note: Personally, I am not a fan of platform towing. I understand its place, but I prefer not to launch off a truck. With my ATOS, I will tow behind a truck with a reel, but I'll have 500' of line pulled out, and the drum locked until I'm in the air, then put back to normal pressure. There is no nose catch with this modified static line system.)

Martin Henry reviews the Brauniger IQ/Competition GPS

Sat, Apr 8 2000, 3:00:06 am EDT

David Glover|Martin Henry|Peter Radman|sailplane

David Glover|John "Ole" Olson|Martin Henry|Peter Radman|sailplane

(?-i)John "Ole" Olson|David Glover|Martin Henry|Peter Radman|sailplane

David Glover|John "Ole" Olson|Martin Henry|Peter Radman|sailplane

Martin Henry, «fnglide», writes:

I've flown with the IQ for around a year now and I look the at the instrument in the following way,

-Thumbs up for being user friendly, easy to use "menu" type adjustments (You only need a few trips to the manual to figure out what you're trying to do!)
-Thumbs up for a simple easy to understand displays (no "Windows" here)
-Thumbs up for Battery life
-Thumbs up for size
-Thumbs up for primary operation (Vario, neto, tec)
-Thumbs up for price
-Thumbs up for the simple FAI protocal

-Thumbs down for the manual (often great for a laugh)
-Thumbs down for the airspeed (I for years I flew with a Aircotec Primus, the airspeed was perfect, all the time, no calibration, no critical position, the IQ, never seems quite right, and since all the STF and its other advanced software rely on this information I'm skeptical that the information is correct)
-Thumbs down for the software (current version) Experience lock up or erratic display when everything was up and running (GPS, tec, goal, airspeed, all that stuff I paid for. Factory advised me that it was a minor software problem that could be reduced if I turned off one or more features plus made sure the batteries were fresh. You are probably flying with the next version, the factory had said that the problem was being corrected but as of this time was not FAI approved so I am forced to stick with the glitch and they as of yet not advised me of an approved software upgrade).

Your comments about the winds aloft display were interesting. I found the feature pretty good considering the amount of material that the somewhat challenged software was trying  to deal with. I found that it often read low.  Winds aloft would need to be greater than 10 mph to create good data, possibly a flaw of the airspeed information. I also felt that it was important to create an accurate sampling period, perfect 360's turning at a rate greater than the period specified in the manual. Rough small thermals make for a poor data sample and easily skew the information displayed. Mind you, pilots would be surprised just how much winds aloft and surface winds can vary.

(editor's note: I'm still working on the wind speed and direction part of the vario.)

One thing is for sure, I can't get into the detail you do on the instrument, I spend most of my time trying to fly, all that in air info detracts from the reason I chose to fly a hang glider... oops I forgot, your flying a foot launched sailplane! (when is the new ATOS coming, or has the factory black balled you? Curious thing here is a local pilot with the "bucks" has been trying to get the factory to take an order yet they as of yet could not be bothered to return his calls....)

(editor's note: My new ATOS arrived yesterday, but was very badly damaged in shipping. The fork lift hind end went through a thick plywood box to take out a leading edge. Fortunately, through the hard work of my dealer, Dave Glover, and Peter Radman at Altair, as well as a flexible customer, I will be able to get another one on Wednesday. The freight forwarder to getting the paper work cleared to get the damage paid for.

The new ATOS looks great (except for the damage). Dennis Cavanaro, who glider was in the same box, is coming to Wallaby to pick his up tomorrow, lucky boy. If your friend wants an ATOS, have him contact Dave Glover («footlaunch») for great service.

The factory seems quite happy to have me write whatever I want to about the ATOS, good or bad. They've never been anything but civil with me. I was on the phone a few weeks back to Berndt Weber. This was after my long rant went out – the whole nine yards article. He was as happy and carefree as always. I just love their attitude.)

What, this record again?

Wed, Dec 22 1999, 6:00:05 pm EST

Martin Henry|record

John "Ole" Olson|Martin Henry|record

(?-i)John "Ole" Olson|Martin Henry|record

John "Ole" Olson|Martin Henry|record

The Oz Report's European correspondent, Han's Bausenwein, has submitted, a new record for the 100 km triangle.  We all thought that Martin Henry's record had been beaten by a whole bunch of folks here at Hay two years ago.  Apparently all those records (including Thomas') were disqualified.

Han's went36.04 km/h around the triangle last May 30th on a Icaro 2000 Laminar ST 14 at Schmittenhöhe (Austria).

Discuss "What, this record again?" at the Oz Report forum   link»

First combined FAI 1 + FAI 2 hang gliding competition in Europe

Fri, Jun 4 1999, 4:00:01 am GMT

A.I.R.|Bernd Weber|Bob Baier|Christof Kratzner|Guido Gehrmann|Hans Bausenwein|Jos Guggenmos|Lukas Etz|Martin Henry|Oliver "Olli" Barthelmes|Ralf Miederhoff|Rosi Brams|Worlds 1999

by Hans Bausenwein

The German Hang Gliding League meet from 22nd of May to 30thof May was the first real European competition, where flex wings and rigid wings flew against each other.

The first task was launched from Hochfelln, a mountain in the south-east of Germany, famous for it's XC-potential. The transport up to the top was by a two section cable car, that only had the capacity to transport 5 flex wings or two rigids at a time. This was the main reason, why the competition was moved to another site after just one task. The rigid wing pilots were just complaining too much about the lack of easy transport.

Task no. 1 was a 93 km flat triangle with only 5 pilots out of the 55 competitors at goal.

There were 8 rigid wings and 47 flex wings in the competition. The rigid wings were 3 ATOS, 2 Guggenmos E 7, 2 Exxtacy and 1 Ghostbuster. Among the 47 flex wing glider were only 3 king posted gliders. The task wasn't a very valid one since 17 of the pilots, which were on the course early, had to land after only 15 km, among them half of the rigid wing field. Christof Kratzner on his first thermal flight with the ATOS was winning the task for the rigids, with Bernd Weber, managing director of A.I.R., coming second on his ATOS. Bob Baier on his Laminar ST was the overall winner of the task and with 3:25 hrs. almost one hour faster than Christof.

In spite of the Bob's brilliant result it was obvious, that the flex wings had no chance to keep-up with the "stiffies". Therefore it was decided to run two separate scores for the "flexxies" and the "stiffies". This is why I cannot give you a combined results list.

We moved to Zell am See in Austria. Schmittenhöhe was our launch site for the next three tasks. And what amazing tasks these were going to be! Schmittenhöhe is 2000m asl, 1250m above the wide open valley floor with spectacular views to the main range of the eastern Alps, called "Hohe Tauern". Jo Bathmann has launched his 205 km World Record FAI-triangle from there. Transport for gliders was easy, but expensive in a big cable car with ⅓ of each glider sticking out of the window. Launching is possible to any direction. There is enough space to rig hundreds of gliders at a time.

The 2ndtask was a flat triangle with 70 km. The day was under called because it appeared to be too wet in the beginning because of the thunderstorms on the previous day. It was a race to goal with 34 "flexxies" and all 8 rigids in goal. Christof Kratzner was winning again with 48,6 km/h and Bob Baier in the flex wing class with 44,27 closely followed by Hans Bausenwein..Christof's and Hans' times showed a difference of 15%. Both pilots had very similar performances during the past years. Later tasks showed a similar difference between the ATOS and a well tuned Laminar ST, which can be understood as the performance difference of these two gliders. The E7's and Christian müller on an Exxtacy, that was Felix Rühle's private one (which tells me, that it certainly is very well tuned) showed similar performances, less than the ATOS. Christian müller is a paraglider competition pilot, who hasn't flown hang gliders for 6 years and just started to fly his Exxtacy.

Task no. 3 was the biggest closed circuit task ever set in a hang gliding competition, a 210 km flat triangle, set along the race course of the "Pinzgauer Spaziergang" (Pinzgau walk). Christof Kratzner was smoking (he really smokes in flight) down the course on his ATOS and again winning with an amazing 46,4 km/h average. 7 of the 8 rigid wing gliders made goal and 11 of the 47 "flexxies". Jobst Bäumer was winning the flex wing competition with an as well amazing average speed of 42,95 km/h.

Task no. 4, the last task of this competition, to me seems to be a valid task to look at the performance differences of rigid wings and flex wings again. The task was a 106 km FAI-triangle followed by an add-on part of 24 km, total task distance 130 km. Very consistent conditions over the whole task and flying time. The task was set to beat the existing speed over a 100km FAI triangle world record, set by Martin Henry from Canada on 22-07-98 with an average speed of 34,81 km/h (FAI 1).

Again all 8 rigid wings made goal again and 18 of the flex wings. Christof Kratzner on his ATOS (who else?) was winning again averaging 42,47 km/h, best flex wing pilot was Jobst Bäumer with 37,96 km/h closely followed by Oliver Barthelmes and Hans Bausenwein. Jobst's average over the course of the triangle was 35,62 km/h, so he claimed a new World Record, as well as Rosi Brams (29,22 km/h) in the feminine category. Christof and Hans did not have their barographs turned on.

The next day, after the comp was over, Hans went up again to beat Jobst's World Record of the previous day with all the documentation well prepared and an official ÖAeC observer at site he managed to fly the course all by himself averaging 36,43 km/h, a new World Record.

So let's look at performances again:

Christof Kratzner ATOS: 42,47 km/h
Hans Bausenwein Laminar ST: 37,46 km/h
Christian müller (Felix Rühles Exxtacy): 38,01 km/h (second fastest time of the day)
Kurt Schuhmann E 7: 37,55 km/h

The result shows a performance difference between Hans' and Christof's gliders

(Christof and I are convinced it is the gliders and not the pilots) of appr. 14%. If the Laminar has a glide ratio in between 14 and 15 than the glide ratio of the ATOS can be calculated to be in between 16 and 17. Many of my friends, who fly hang gliding competitions agree, that the performance of a good Laminar ST is in between 14 and 15. Flying next to Christof's ATOS even lets me believe the performance difference is bigger, than what I unscientifically calculated. The performance of the E 7 is similar to a very well tuned Exxtacy and somewhere in between the ATOS and the Laminar ST, but closer to the ATOS. This was also what I could see when I watched Bernd Weber on his ATOS and Kurt Schuhmann on his E 7 doing a long valley crossing together.

So what about the Ghostbuster? Lukas Etz did not seem to do too well with it. He only flew it in the first two of the 4 tasks. The glider suffered by some transport damage and Lukas did not dare to continue to fly it anymore. He changed to an Exxtacy. I also would not want to evaluate the performance of this Ghostbuster. It was the first one made, the one which was presented at the FREE FLIGHT exhibition mid of April in Garmisch and it looked pretty prototypish too me.

German Hang Gliding League 99 FAI 2 total scores

position pilot's name glider task 1 task 2 task 3 task 4 points
1 Kratzner Christof Atos 575 617 940 774 2906
2 Weber Bernd Atos 548 454 557 473 2032
3 Guggenmos Josef Guggenmos E 7 303 423 754 458 1938
4 Hoffmann-Guben Marcus Atos 107 433 681 605 1826
5 Schumann Kurt Guggenmos E 7 107 406 651 541 1705
6 Etz Lukas Ghostbuster 100 422 615 505 1642
7 müller Christian Exxtacy DNS 363 646 572 1581
8 müglich Dieter Exxtasy 107 114 229 463 913

The first four pilots of this list will be the German Hang Gliding National Team FAI 2 for the 1999 World Championships at Monte Cucco Italy.

German League 99 FAI 1 total scores

position name 1.task 2.task. 3.task 4.task 5.task 6.task points
1 Baier Bob 636 294 443 710 830 812 3725
2 Baeumer Jobst 828 197 374 128 941 932 3400
3 Barthelmes Oliver 591 195 118 553 826 910 3193
4 Bausenwein Hans 560 155 118 640 817 888 3178
5 Bolz Holger 616 195 DNS 631 895 674 3011
6 Woll Gerald 479 168 118 606 835 681 2887
7 Kausche Peter 502 160 251 527 794 437 2671
8 Miederhoff Ralf 497 146 353 425 584 593 2598
9 Rauch Thomas 417 154 202 498 566 756 2593
10 Hertling Steffen 458 109 199 451 702 666 2585

As by 30-05-99, the German National Team FAI 1 for the Hang Gliding World Championships 1999 at Monte Cucco in Italy will be:

1. Guido Gehrmann, La Mouette Topless

(the current World Champion, who could not fly the League this year, because he is trainee Lufthansa pilot)

2. Bob Baier, Icaro Laminar ST
3. Jobst Bäumer, Aeros Stealth
4. Hans Bausenwein, Icaro Laminar ST
5. Gerald Woll, Icaro Laminar ST
6. Oliver Barthelmes, Moyes CSX 5

Discuss "First combined FAI 1 + FAI 2 hang gliding competition in Europe" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Whose got the record?

Sun, Jul 5 1998, 7:56:16 pm EDT

altitude|CIVL|FAI|FAI Sporting Code|flight park|Martin Henry|photo|record|speed record|towing|triangle|world record

While reading Tim's reports that I resent to the hang gliding mailing list, Michael "Hollywood" Champlin noticed that the meet organizers may have been using an incorrect specification for the required start height - too low. He immediately sent a message to Tim, to see if they could check this out.

Here is what Mike wrote:

On a related note, it was reported that the pilots flying for an official world record 100 km triangle needed to take their start photo below 3,000 feet AGL in order to meet the altitude/distance requirement. According to my copy of the FAI Sporting Code Section 7 the start height allowance should be 2% of the total distance flown. 2% of 100 km is 6,561 feet, so it seems a start height of about 6,500 feet should be allowed.

Tim responded immediately, and said that yes, Mike might be right. They are currently awaiting a clarification from CIVL. Perhaps Rohan will set the world record 100 km triangle speed record afterall.

At Hollywood's urging I also sent a message to Martin Henry, the current holder of the 100 km speed record, set last summer in Chelan. Martin lives just to the north a couple of hours, and not too far from a great flight park as well as a number of wonderful mountain hanggliding sites. Martin wrote to Tim:

I thought I would pass on some info re: the triangle records. I know that the FAI has been working on a new standard for start and finish alts but the 2% rule is as follows:

The difference between the start Altitude and the Finish Altitude must not exceed 2% of the total course length (to insure that the course is flown with out the advantage of an extremely high altitude start.)

On a 100km triangle, the difference between the start and the finish altitude cannot exceed 2km (2000 meters). This rule was intended to prevent individuals from towing to extreme altitudes and blasting around the course with the unfair advantage of the initial start.

So if a pilot Starts at 3000 meters AGL and arrives at goal at 500 meters AGL on a 100km speed course, the 2% rule has been exceeded and the speed would not be valid. A pilot must Start and Finish within the 2% rule to negate an altitude advantage.

Keep in mind that the rule is based on TOTAL COURSE LENGTH. Not the declared category. Also on a longer course the 2% rule is less and less a realistic problem. The shorter the course the more important it is to get the 2% rule correct.

It's a very difficult rule to enforce as most pilots use photographic evidence to prove start and finish.

Just thought you would appreciate the Info.

Martin Henry

PS: BTW, According to the certificate hanging on my wall… Its my 100km speed record that was broken (set July 22 1998, near Chelan WA. USA flying an Aeros Stealth 151) at 35.06 km per hour. Ah, glory is sweet, but so short…Stinking OZ comps!

When Tomas set the 150 km triangle record last year at Hay, Martin realized just how hard it would be to beat that record in Chelan.

Discuss "Whose got the record?" at the Oz Report forum   link»