Wills Wing
Flytec

Oz Report

topic: airspace (50 articles)

CIVL Bureau Meeting, 2022 »

Wed, Dec 14 2022, 1:31:42 pm GMT

Cloud flying?

airspace|CIVL Bureau|cloud flying|Airscore

https://www.fai.org/news/civl-bureau-2022-meeting-sum?type=node&id=24473

HG & PG XC

XC Software: Airscore is operational and has been used here and there. Some adjustments are needed in the calculation of the leading points referred to the Working Group for finalisation.

There is currently no satisfactory way to analyse and penalise cloud flying. More work is needed before a proposal is pushed to the plenary.

Bureau will propose to the plenary a simplified rule forbidding any infringement inside the restricted airspace, with no gradual penalty.

Discuss "CIVL Bureau Meeting, 2022" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Out of the south

Sun, Feb 6 2022, 4:13:38 pm MST

North from north of La Belle

airspace|Pablo Milholo|Wallaby Ranch|XContest.org

https://www.xcontest.org/world/en/flights/detail:pablomilholo/4.02.2022/17:06

On Friday Pablo flew 163 km in about five hours and landed north east of Wallaby Ranch. Near the end he was flying under Orlando airspace (6,000' floor) east of highway 27. The wind was out of the south 10 - 15 mph until he got north by Davenport and it turned south southwest.

Discuss "Out of the south" at the Oz Report forum   link»   »

2021 Florida Nationals Series Comps

Wed, Nov 17 2021, 11:37:57 pm MST

airspace|Airtribune|Florida|food|sport|Sport Class|Stephan Mentler|tow|weather|Wilotree Park

Trying to get them published on Airtribune

Stephan Mentler ‹team@Icaro2000usa.com›> writes:

While we are working to get things going on the registration side, here are some details for both comps.

The entry fee is $375 (includes Wilotree Park Fee, $475 after March 10th). NOTE that entry fees do not include tow fees. Aerotowing fee is $375 - this includes a tow on check-in day. Some of the things that we will have:

• Daily Prizes
• Event T-shirt
• Food and beverages the night of check-in (I plan to get he same ice-cream truck for us)
• Prizes for the first three places in the Open and Sport Class
• Awards ceremony dinner
• On-line Turn point Coordinates
• On-line airspace files
• Weather Briefing on Pilots’ Phones via WhatsApp
• Task Sent to Pilots’ Phones via WhatsApp
• Wilotree Park (includes free WIFI, access to clubhouse and amenities [swimming pool, kitchen, pool table, etc.

Our cancellation policy is as follows - receive full refund minus $12 (USD) for withdrawal up to March 1st 2022. Receive 50% refund for withdrawal after March 2nd till April 1st. Refunds for withdrawals after April 1st are at the discretion of the Organizer and Wilotree Park, but not likely as we will have secured aircraft, the grounds, and other tangibles.

Discuss "2021 Florida Nationals Series Comps" at the Oz Report forum   link»   »

Flying over the phosphate mines

Mon, Nov 1 2021, 11:50:59 am MDT

Heading south southwest in Florida

airspace|XC

It's a rare day in Florida when you can fly south toward Venice, on the Gulf coast, 170 km away from Wilotree Park. It's always a flight that we look forward to when the conditions allow for it.

After you follow the course between the Lakeland airspace to the west and Bartow airspace to the east you may find yourself over phosphate mines in the Bone Valley. They are not exactly attractive landing areas if you happen to be low, so you are particularly careful about staying with what ever lift you've happen to have found.

After the phosphate is dug up you're left with hills of tailings and light green ponds/lakes. You just work yourself around the edges of the mines.

The Peace River runs through it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/interactive/2021/florida-phosphate-mining-bone-valley/

Discuss "Flying over the phosphate mines" at the Oz Report forum   link»   »

Going Around Orlando Airspace

January 21, 2021, 11:33:02 pm EST

Going Around Orlando Airspace

A lot of excitement to the northeast

airspace

With gusty west southwest winds, only Mick, Rich and Robin were willing to give it a go on Thursday. This wind direction has at times proven difficult for the tug pilots, but not today and not the last time we tried it.

Mick and Rich landed back at Wilotree, while Robin got away for a thirty kilometer flight. He was able to get to 4,000' which is below any of the nearby airspace for Orlando.

Discuss "Going Around Orlando Airspace" at the Oz Report forum   link»

It's Our Airspace, Too.

February 21, 2020, 1:52:02 pm EST

It's Our Airspace, Too.

Over the airport

airspace|PG

https://www.redlandsdailyfacts.com/2020/02/19/paragliders-flying-over-redlands-airport-have-a-right-to-the-airspace-faa-says

Glider enthusiasts floating over the Redlands airport to land at a nearby brewery have a right to the airspace just as much as pilots of larger aircraft, federal officials said last week, but safety should always be the primary concern.

Pilots using Redlands Municipal Airport have been complaining of near misses with paragliders, and a December letter to the Federal Aviation Administration led the agency to hold a meeting to discuss the concerns and find solutions.

“Everybody has access to the airspace; we’re not saying you can’t come in here,” Anthony Wood, a manager with the FAA, told the several dozen attendees on Feb. 14 at the airport.

FAA regulation 103.13 says ultralight vehicle operators must yield to aircraft and cannot create a collision hazard, he said.

Airspace scoring confusion

Sun, Jul 29 2018, 1:51:05 pm MDT

It was a semi circle airspace not a full circle as the scoring software thought

airspace

I asked Petr Polách:

So why did they originally give you and 31 other pilots zeros on the first day for going into airspace and then cut that list down to many fewer pilots? Bird sanctuary airspace I saw.

He wrote back:

Error in software. The half sphere airspace was counted as a circle. They solved it by manual check of all the tracklogs.

Discuss "Airspace scoring confusion" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

Airspace on your flight computer

July 3, 2013, 8:09:57 CDT

Airspace on your flight computer

The easy way to put airspace data on your Flytec 6030 or Brauniger Compeo+

airspace|Flytec 6030

I've written about how to get airspace before here:

http://ozreport.com/17.002#1

http://ozreport.com/17.003#0

And you can read about it here:  http://flytec.com/software.html#air

But I wanted to give you the easy way to do it step by step (for the US first):

1) In the US go here: http://www.maddyhome.com/ctr/

2) Use the standard Google Map controls or the "Select zoom region" control to view an appropriate area you plan to fly.

3) Use the "Select map region" (the square box in the upper left hand corner) tool to select the desired airspace sections.

4) Scroll down in the middle scroll bar until you see the OpenAir button under Download Data. Click on the OpenAir button to download the airspace data file to your computer.

5) Click Ok to Open with Notepad (you may have to save it first and then open with Notepad and save as a txt file).

6) Save file with the txt extension (automatic when you save from Notepad).

7) Open the saved airspace data file with OpenAir2faf program that you downloaded earlier to your computer found here: http://flytec.com/software.html#air. If you didn't download it earlier, do so now.

8) Convert the air space data file from text format to faf format.

9) Copy the new faf file to your SD card that you'll keep in your flight computer into the CTR folder (create this folder if it doesn't exist).

10) Put the SD card back into the flight computer and go to the Menu, SD Card.

11) Select the file name of the air space faf file that you just created.

With the SD card loaded into the 6030/20, the instrument will search for the SD card for the 100 closest CTRs and load them into the 6030/20 Airspace menu. As you fly from one location to another the 6030/20 will update the list of active CTRs from the SD card. The active CTRs are shown on the map page and the usual alerts and distance to CTR are shown when flying near CTRs. If you fly within the warning distance of a CTR the 6030/20 will give notice in the Information Field. Pressing the i key at anytime will bring up the Info Page which will show the CTR info for the 5 (3 on 6020) closest airspaces.

If you want airspace for other countries, you can go here: http://www.lloydbailey.net/airspace.html or here: http://soaringweb.org/Airspace.

Discuss "Airspace on your flight computer" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Flytec 6030 and airspace files, part 2

Fri, Jan 4 2013, 7:58:39 am AEDT

Airspace files stored on the SD card, for the tip of the week

airspace|Flytec 6030

http://flytec.com/software.html#air

Perhaps the most effective way to load airspace is to save a properly formatted airspace file to an SD card located in your computer and then insert the SD card into the flight instrument. In this case, you start with an OpenAir .txt file and run it through a Flytec Utility to check for and remove any formatting issues. After processing the .txt file it is given the suffix .faf (Flytec Airspace Formatted) so that it will be recognized by the instrument. This is essentially text file with some restrictions (necessary for the flight instrument to properly interpret the airspace definitions).

OpenAir2faf utility v2.00 - Windows tool for preparing OpenAir files

OpenAir2faf utility v2.01 - OSX tool for preparing OpenAir files

With this method there is no limit to the number of airspaces that can be accessed by the flight instrument. It simply loads the 100 closest airspaces as needed. This occurs first a few minutes after the GPS acquires (depending on the size of the airspace file) and then, in flight, the instrument will update the active airspaces as needed.

The other benefit of this method is that you can save multiple .faf files to the SD card and select the desired files when appropriate. For example, you can have one for United States east coast and one for west coast, or you can have one for each state or country you fly in.

The utilities for processing an OpenAir file is available for PC and Mac and can be found here: http://flytec.com/software.html#air and above. You can obtain OpenAir files from http://soaringweb.org/Airspace/.

Once you have the desired OpenAir file on your computer you can process it with one of the above utility and save it to anSD card as follows:

1. Insert SD card into your computer
2. Launch OpenAir2faf
3. Click the OpenAir file button
4. Browse to the location of the desired .txt file and click Open
5. Click the FAF file button
6. Browse to the CTR folder of the SD card and click Open
7. The path is now shown in the FAF File box
8. After… "CTR", add "/ up to 8 letter name for the converted file and .faf" (e.g., …/CTR/USA.faf).
9. Click convert, the number of processed airspaces will be shown.
10. Properly eject SD card and insert into flight instrument (when it is either off or in menu mode).

Note: Airspaces that have too many elements will not be converted. If you have one of these in your flying area you can read the document here: Reduce the number of corner points for instructions on how to reduce the number of elements.

Discuss "Flytec 6030 and airspace files, part 2" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

Flytec 6030 and airspace files, part 1

Thu, Jan 3 2013, 6:50:47 am AEDT

Airspace files formatted for the flight instrument, for the tip of the week

airspace|Flytec 6030

http://flytec.com/software.html#air

Loading Airspace on the 6030/6020

There are a few relatively easy ways to load restricted airspace files into the 6030/6020. The first method is to upload an airspace file into the flight instrument airspace menu using FlyChart. The file must be a properly formatted .fas (Flytec Air Space) file which is an XML file. With this method the number of actual restricted airspaces that can be loaded is limited to 300.

You may obtain an airspace file from a fellow pilot or a meet director or you can create your own with Rick Maddy's excellent web tool at: http://www.maddyhome.com/ctr/ which covers the United States only.

Once you have a file on your computer you can use FlyChart to upload directly into the instrument as follows: In FlyChart click: Menu> Extras> Flight interment options> Restricted areas. Click the Load button. Browse to the location of the desired .fas file. Select it and click Open - the airspaces contained in the .fas file will be shown in the preview pane. Click the upload button and the airspaces will be loaded into the instrument. Airspace menu Note: when the airspace file is open in the preview pane, you can deselect/select or edit individual airspaces by by right-clicking on it.

The second method is to use publicly distributed OpenAir files available on the Internet. OpenAir files are text files and can be loaded with FlyChart or GPS Dump for PC and GPS Dump for Mac. These files must also be limited to 300 airspaces as above. The problem with OpenAir files is that they frequently contain formatting errors that can prevent a contained airspace from being properly recognized by the flight instrument. More on this in part 2.

How to use Rick's site:

This site: http://www.maddyhome.com/ctr/ says:

Use the standard Google Map controls or the "Select zoom region" control to view an appropriate area you plan to fly.
Use the "Select map region" tool to select the desired airspace segments.
Click on the OpenAir button to download the data file to your computer.
Use FlyChart to upload the data to your vario.
It creates a restricted.fas file.

Discuss "Flytec 6030 and airspace files, part 1" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

Airspace defined in the US

Wed, Dec 12 2012, 8:22:34 am PST

A graphical explanation from Tom Johns

airspace|PG

http://www.nwparagliding.com/library/resources/airspace_regs.pdf

Discuss "Airspace defined in the US" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

Check out your tracklog

April 18, 2012, 11:02:56 EDT

Check out your tracklog

Especially for airspace violations

airspace|track log

The US: http://chorlton.homeip.net/flighttools/solo.html

Australia: http://www.rosser.cc/pg/airspace/flight.html

Simply click the Browse button at the top of the web page and browse for one of your IGC-formatted tracklogs on your computer. Your flight will be displayed like this:

The map will be moved and centered on your flight. You can easily move the cursor through the tracklog with your mouse.

David Wheeler <<davidrwheeler>> writes:

I wrote some HTML tools to display IGC files, singly or comparing two tracklogs. I added the US airspace and the solo tool will highlight airspace violations.

The airspace file used to be 16MB for the whole US so I compromised and just did the west half of the US. I've since found a better way of encoding the airspace boundaries and the file is now a more manageable 2MB. I will be adding back the rest of the US soon.

The solo tool is here : http://chorlton.homeip.net/flighttools/solo.html

Dual Here: http://chorlton.homeip.net/flighttools/dual.html

and here: http://chorlton.homeip.net/flighttools/dualelapsed.html

The instructions are on my generic, very badly put together website : http://chorlton.homeip.net.

The IGC flight tools will not work with Internet Explorer or Safari (yet). They will work with Firefox, Opera and Chrome. Load IGC files from your hard drive (click the Browse button). Scroll through the track using the graph or the mouse wheel. 'Q' moves back in time. 'A' moves forward. 'W' moves back 1/10 of the track. 'S' moves forward. 'E' moves to the start of the track. 'D' moves to the end. The map will automatically pan and scale to keep both markers on the screen.

Matthew Rosser was struggling with the Oz airspace so I wrote a parser for the CASA airspace definition PDF and did an Oz version for him. I believe he found a better OpenAir source so he now uses that. He uses my HTML5/JavaScript to display the IGC file and do the validation.

I'm also working with the GPSDump author to add an airspace export that would be a standalone HTML Google Maps page to display the selected airspaces.

Discuss "Check out your tracklog" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Airspace - undefined »

August 10, 2010, 5:04:32 pm GMT+0200

Airspace - undefined

Different ways to define it with different outcomes

airspace|Erich Lerch|Steve Kroop

Steve Kroop <<info>> writes:

I spoke with Peter at Flytec today and it appears like your initial thought that this was an organizer created problem was correct. The airspace definition was not properly constructed. I have not looked at it myself but he said that the airspace definition in question is not a closed shape and that you can see this by zooming in on the computer. In order for the instrument or the scoring program to properly place the airspace, the shape must be closed. The amount of error will depend which way the software or firmware constructs the space from the reference points (i.e., clockwise or counter clockwise). In this case I believe the stop/start point for the arc shape does not fall on the circumference as defined by the arc's radius.

I hope no one was penalized to the point that it changed the standings and the organizers will need to be more carful about creating the restricted areas if they will be enforcing penalties.

Erich has spent a lot of time on this and is preparing a detailed explanation which I will send to you.

Erich Lerch <<erich.lerch>> writes:

At the URL below you will find the detailed explanation of the problem. The definition of a segment in the OpenAir Format is unclear. The CTR's at the pre World were not properly defined. Flytec has to improve a problem in the display of segments. But we will do that only if the software developer of FS as well as other software developers agree on the same interpretation of not well defined segments in OpenAir format. Until then, we recommend to use only CTRs defined with lines.

I will contact directly the developers of FS and MaxPunkte to find solutions.

http://ozreport.com/docs/CTRsegmentdistances.pdf

Discuss "Airspace - undefined" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Checking airspace with FS

Tue, Aug 10 2010, 3:03:07 pm GMT

It has to be done manually

airspace|barometric altitude|CIVL|FS|GPS altitude|Worlds|Worlds 2010

Both barometric pressure altitude (assuming the standard atmospheric pressure of 1013.25 mb at mean sea level) and GPS altitude are displayed by FS. Unfortunately only GPS altitude is checked automatically against airspace height limits, not pressure altitude, which is required by the CIVL Sporting Code. The scorekeeper has to manually adjust the GPS altitude with the difference between pressure altitude and GPS altitude to determine if the pilot has violated airspace.

FS has not been updated since the 2009 Worlds in Laragne.

Discuss "Checking airspace with FS" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Australian Aviation Law

Thu, Jan 21 2010, 8:41:54 pm AEDT

Yes, let's be clear, we can fly in Class E airspace

airspace

The article and re transponders. The conclusion:

I believe it's ok for us to fly in class E airspace. See section 4.7 (ii) - gives us access to E space. 3. 1(b) exempts us from VHF radio. I believe the transponder exemption is described in the Aeronautical Information Pack (1.5) section 6.1.2.

The instrument CASA 202/98, I think, which specifies transponders for class E airspace only applies to aircraft with engine driver electrical systems.

Discuss "Australian Aviation Law" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

200 km FAI triangle - airspace violations?

Fri, Aug 7 2009, 2:12:00 pm CDT

Oops, not so good after all

airspace|FAI|triangle

The DHV got a letter from Ryanair here. Translated here.

The red sections below show where the pilot was in airspace.

Discuss "200 km FAI triangle - airspace violations?" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

Airspace and the Flytecs

Wed, Jun 24 2009, 4:02:03 pm EDT

Airspace and the Flytecs

The 6030 and the Brauniger Plus don't know about the floors to the airspace.

airspace|Flytec 6030

The Open Air air space files can be downloaded to the 6030 and the Plus, but if you are between the walls of the airspace you will get a "scrolling" "flashing" line at the bottom of the screen providing some airspace "information." It flashes by too quickly to tell what's up actually.

This is a feature.

Discuss "Airspace and the Flytecs" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Airspace on the 6030 at the Worlds

June 19, 2009, 5:30:08 pm EDT

Airspace on the 6030 at the Worlds

Trouble with Open Air files

airspace|Flytec 6030

The meet organizers have downloaded air space Open Air text files to our instruments. Unfortunately, we are finding on the Flytec 6030 (and I assume the Brauniger Plus) that this is causing a "scrolling" or "flashing" display at the bottom of the main display, displaying in turn and very quickly the next waypoint and three sets of indecipherable air space information. This is true here even though one is not in air space.

We are trying to figure out how it get this fixed. If you have any help, please contact me.

Discuss "Airspace on the 6030 at the Worlds" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Airspace, creating downloadable files »

June 19, 2009, 5:29:31 pm EDT

Airspace, creating downloadable files

A graphic way to create Open Air text files

airspace|Flytec 6030|Jim Yocom

Jim Yocom <<jim>> writes:

One of our local pilots created a tool to download airspace maps to your Flytec 6030/5030. I have used this here locally and found it to be helpful. Here is the link http://www.maddyhome.com/ctr/.

Discuss "Airspace, creating downloadable files" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Airspace, how does the scorekeeper know that you are in it? »

January 18, 2009, 11:18:27 pm AEDT

Airspace, how does the scorekeeper know that you are in it?

We've got three pieces of software and the tracklogs on the original instruments

airspace|CIVL|Flytec 6030|Jon "Jonny" Durand jnr

And a number of them disagree already.

Wesley is using FS and FSFlight to score the meet. FS is the new approved CIVL software for scoring. But it does a pretty poor job when it comes to checking for airspace violations. Here's what part of my flight looked like on day one in FSFlight:

The straight lines are the edges of the airspace. The straight line coming down from the upper left should be a circle. According to FSFlight I wasn't in airspace, but we know that the airspace is circular and that I was in airspace. So FSFlight does not correctly implement (as far as we can tell) the airspace boundaries from the airspace text file.

Here is what this section of my flight looks like in CompeGPS:


Here CompeGPS (the program that Welsey used for this purpose) shows me in the airspace (using the same airspace file, the same one that was downloaded by Wesley to our 6030's). While it shows me in airspace (the straight line at the bottom is actually a curve), we know that the curve is slightly too far from the center of the airspace and it doesn't show me exiting the airspace, which I in fact do, according to what I saw on my map screen of my 6030.

I brought up my flight in SeeYou with the airspace file provided by Naviter. Here's what it looks like:

The red lines are the airspace. You'll notice that unlike what CompeGPS showed, I do exit the airspace and fly right next to it. This is exactly what my 6030 was showing and that is why I flew just outside the airspace and just outside the corner to catch up with Jonny and Lukas.

So it would appear that both FSFlight and CompeGPS using the airspace definition files that were downloaded to our GPSes do not correctly display the airspace and should not be used for determining whether a pilot has entered airspace or not. SeeYou, using the airspace file provided by Naviter appears to match what we see displayed on our GPSes after Wesley has downloaded his Australian airspace file (assumed to be the same one).

In addition, I would say that if the scorekeeper doesn't download a airspace map to your GPS or flight computer, you could easily run into problems in competitions where this is an issue. Remember we are entering the airspace from the side, not from below, which is the common assumption.

Wesley had no problem loading the airspace onto our 6030's, but couldn't do it onto the 5030's. I believe that you have to unlocked some memory on the 5030's to get that to work.

I will have more on this soon.

Discuss Airspace, how does the scorekeeper know that you are in it? at the Oz Report forum   link»

Flying under airspace and altitude limitations

January 15, 2009, 7:20:28 AEDT

Flying under airspace and altitude limitations

What penalties to apply

airspace

This is slightly edited version of how we are dealing with airspace restrictions here at the Bogong Cup:

The Pines have an airspace floor of 4500' amsl (1,372m) at launch. Well south of the Pines and over the flats by Millawa the airspace floor (above which you are in airspace) is 8,500' (2,591m). There is a general 10,000' (3048m) height limitation for hang gliders in Australia

Pilots should make themselves familiar with the airspace limits shown on the competition maps (see the map in the headquarters). Pilots can in most cases receive from the scorekeeper a download to their GPS/flight computer that shows airspaces.

Track logs will be checked for each task and penalties will be applied for violations of air space and hang glider altitude limits. Infringements will be determined using "GPS" height (GPS altitude as determined by GPSDump and CompeGPS).

The penalty (in points) shall be the square of your maximum height above the air space floor or altitude limitation in meters divided by 200, summed for each incident (up above and then down below of air space floor or altitude limitation) during a task. For violations less than one minute, no penalty will be applied. For violations over three minutes a second incident shall start and so on for every three minutes.

Suspect track logs will be evaluated as per the current HGFA manual.

The task committee shall strive to create tasks which keep pilots out of areas with air space restrictions, as much as possible.

Airspace for your flight computer

May 7, 2008, 11:14:11 EDT

Airspace

A well done application for free

airspace|Flytec 6030

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11388&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=29

I'd like to announce a website I created to help those with Flytec 5030/6020/6030 or Bräuniger IQ Compeo+/Competino+ varios.

The site is a Google Maps app that overlays various airspaces.

You can use a selection tool on the map to select an area of the map you plan to fly then download a file with just that data. This file can then be uploaded to your supported vario using FlyChart.

Discuss Airspace at the Oz Report forum   link»

Flytec 6030 airspace for Europe and Tasmania

February 19, 2008, 6:44:09 GMT+1000

6030 airspace

Even more airspace files

airspace|Flytec 6030

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10818

http://www.maddyhome.com/hangglide/vario.jsp

Flytec 6030 airspace by the state or province

February 14, 2008, 8:42:11 GMT+1100

6030

Breaking up the big North American airspace file

airspace|Flytec 6030

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10818

http://www.maddyhome.com/hangglide/vario.jsp

I have taken Flytec's large North American airspace file and split it into separate files for each state and province.

Australian Airspace Mythology

Mon, Feb 4 2008, 2:00:25 pm MST

Airspace

Clarification of the rules

airspace

https://OzReport.com/12.019#0

https://OzReport.com/12.020#1

The above two articles discussed some myths about Australian Airspace. Now that I've had a chance to get some of the feedback that I requested on these "myths" (https://OzReport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10653 and https://OzReport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10671) where do things stand?

First, while it is not an airspace rule, hang gliders have a special rule that just applies to them in Australia. They are not allowed to fly over 10,000 ASL in Australia (for no good reason as far as I can tell, but I had assumed that it was the oxygen issue).

Second, while again it is not an airspace rule, hang gliders are not allowed to fly within ten nautical miles of Dubbo (or other CTAF (R) designated air fields) unless they are using an aircraft band radio to announce their present on the appropriate frequency (and are licensed to do so). Dubbo seems to be the only air field that might be a problem for hang glider pilots.

You can read more about these issues at the URLs above at the Oz Report forum.

Discuss "Australian Airspace Mythology" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

Australian Visual Navigation Charts

Fri, Feb 1 2008, 2:05:39 pm MST

VNC

Otherwise known as airspace maps

airspace

http://www.maptrax.com.au/c/150063/1/individual-vnc-charts.html

You can find on-line raster/calibrated e-Versions of Visual Navigation Charts (which are known in other locations as airspace maps) for Australia at the URL above.

Visual Navigation Charts The VNC will help your plan your flight in relation to controlled airspace. It will also make the transition from the WAC to the VTC when operating around terminal areas. Additionally, the VNC will help you to navigate when nearing Controlled Airspace or Restricted or Danger areas. The VNC contains the following details:

  • topographical information at a scale of 1:500,000
  • controlled airspace and Flight Information Area boundaries
  • VHF area frequencies for contacting ATS
  • MBZ and CTAF details
  • Designated Remote Area and Danger/Restricted Areas

World Aeronautical Charts for Australia are available here http://www.maptrax.com.au/c/150061/1/individual-wac-charts.html

You can get the charts in various formats. I downloaded the GEO/NOS format, which you can then read with this free program: http://www.sping.com/seaclear/

These charts contain additional information not found in the vector airspace database that can be displayed in SeeYou.

Discuss "Australian Visual Navigation Charts" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

Myths about Australian Airspace, part 2 »

Mon, Jan 28 2008, 1:58:27 pm MST

Myths, part 2

We don't have transponders or the power to power them

airspace|Rohan Holtkamp|Rohan Taylor|sailplane

Back to not a Myth #4. See here: http://www.casa.gov.au/download/orders/cao95/9508.pdf Section 4:

Except with the written permission of CASA, and in accordance with any conditions set out in the permission to minimise hazard to other aircraft or to persons or property on the ground or water, a person must not fly a hang glider:

(a) at a height in excess of 10 000 feet above mean sea level; or

(b) at a height in excess of 300 feet above ground level unless a serviceable altimeter which meets the standards specified in section 103.3 of the Civil Aviation Orders and set to QNH is carried in a position so as to be easily read by the pilot at all times whilst in flight; or

(c) within an area designated by CASA as an area where the operation of hang gliders would constitute a hazard to other aircraft; or

(d) within 8 kilometres of a military aerodrome; or

(e) except in:

(i) Class G airspace; or

(ii) Class E airspace in V.m.C.; or

(iii) Class C or D airspace that is below 300 feet above ground and not within 16 kilometres of a controlled aerodrome; or

See also here: https://OzReport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10653. BTW, can you make out what the rule above actually says, with its exception? Does it really say there are exceptions to (a) through (d)? What does V.m.C. mean?

Myth #5: There is a 8,500' airspace ceiling that we can't go above especially in areas around Mt. Beauty, Bright and the Pines.

Fact: There is Class E airspace, East COA control area, at 8497' to FL 125 over most of the area that we fly during the Bogong Cup (other than the Emu launch and up into the mountains). There is also Class C airspace above this Class E airspace (South EA control area), starting at FL 125 going to FL 180.

Hang gliders are not restricted from flying in this Class E control area, according to Rohan Holtkamp, and I believe Rohan (and it is confirmed here: https://OzReport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10653). This is because hang gliders (and sailplanes) are not capable of carrying transponders and are therefore exempt and not restricted in this Class E airspace.

Check out the international airspace database as displayed in SeeYou: http://www.naviter.si/download/airspace/index.php?Itemid=27.

You can find out more about these airspaces here:

http://www.auf.asn.au/navigation/airspace.html

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aboutus/airspace/ourairspace.asp

http://www.vatpac.org/vat-dean/australia/austair.htm

Myth #6: We may not fly in Class C controlled airspace around Albury, which is especially an issue if we launch from the Pines.

Fact: The meet organizers can contact the control tower at Albury and obtain permission for us to fly through Class C controlled airspace. Sailplane pilots do this all the time as they have aircraft radios on board and can contact the tower directly and tell them their course, altitude and flight plan. Meet organizers can contact the tower by cell phone and hopefully get permission given our flight plans for the day. The meet organizers have to be as specific as possible giving the times, course, estimate altitudes, etc, so that the tower can plan for the flights. Otherwise they might not be so accommodating.

If you have SeeYou, you can look at all the Australian airspace. This map is very detailed and useful. Just download the data file from the SeeYou web site. I started writing about thee myths because when I went to the air space charts to check out what I had been told, the charts didn't reflect the stories. Of course, airspace charts can't reflect all the special restrictions, for example, the ones for hang gliders.

Have I cleared up the myths, or just added to them? Write to me if you disagree or have additional information.

Discuss "Myths about Australian Airspace, part 2" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

Flying Clean

August 2, 2007, 10:25:21 pm EDT

Clean

How to avoid airspace

airspace

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8887

There is a wealth of online information and resources to aid the pilot in flight planning and programming his navigation instruments and understanding the airspace and air traffic flows.

Chelan Classic held up by fire

Tue, Jul 6 2004, 7:00:03 pm GMT

Those brown hills around Chelan burns up quite a bit.

CXCC

airspace|Chelan XC Classic 2004|fire|Joe Ulman|wildlife|XC

Joe Ulman «jlulm» writes:

The Chelan XC Classic is currently on hold. The local airspace has been restricted while they fight the Beebe and Pot Peak fires. The Beebe fire started July 4, reportedly caused when an owl that was nesting atop a power pole near Beebe park was electrocuted.

Discuss "Chelan Classic held up by fire" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

Finger Lakes Aerosports Flight Park

Fri, Sep 19 2003, 3:00:00 am EDT

aerotow|airspace|Australia|FAA|flight park|Joan Hidalgo Proia|job|Kendrick "Ken/Kenny" Brown|Kenny Brown|Marilyn Vos Savant|Martin "Marty" Beckenbach|powered|site

http://www.longacrefarms.com/flightpark.htm

We hated to leave the wonderful Finger Lakes Aerosports Flight Park, but with the hurricane tipped (as they say in Australia) to come through there on Friday, and with Sun Dogs in the sky, we decided to make a run for it to the southwest through Ohio. It’s raining now late on Thursday night, but was dry with light breezes during the drive out. We hope to be able to drive to close to Chattanooga tomorrow to arrive in time for the Team Challenge.

The party was just starting at the flight park and Marty and Doug Allen were doing a great job. Marilyn and Steve had driven in from Morningside and the cu’s were just coming over after the first band cirrus came through. Kenny Brown was there with his Duddlebug 2. Mike was giving Litesport demos. Ron was demoing everything in the WW line.

The site was absolutely beautiful and a great set up. The Rochester Area Flyers have a wonderful facility to fly at thanks to a $100,000 investment on Marty’s part and Doug and Joan’s farm. Again we hang glider pilots get way way more than we deserve.

Marty has really gone through the process of putting together a flight park with $10,000 in legal fees to set up four limited liability corporations that protect his personal and other business assets. They have a great working relationship with the local FAA office.

They are not in controlled airspace (although only a half hour from Rochester, NY), but they are under a victor airway (centered a mile away) going into the airport. There is undiverted commercial air traffic at 1,200’ AGL and above n the area.

With a residential area just to the north, but huge farming areas in all the other direction, they make sure to keep the noise of the tugs, ultralights, powered parachutes, and powered paragliders to a minimum. The air strip can handle GA traffic and has been there for forty five years.

Marty was able to purchase cheaply a good sized roller that would normally be used for building highways. This was absolutely essential for getting a nice smooth runway (especially after frost heaving). This makes it so much easier on the trikes and tugs.

It’s clear to me that there can be some really great flights from this flight park next year. Maybe all the may into Vermont, which would be very cool.

Congratulations to Marty, Doug and Joan.

Discuss aerotow parks at OzReport.com/forum/phpBB2

Discuss "Finger Lakes Aerosports Flight Park" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Jayne on the NAA

Sat, Jul 12 2003, 2:00:02 pm EDT

airspace|Chris Muller|competition|cost|Dennis Pagen|FAI|government|history|insurance|Jayne DePanfilis|job|NAA|record|sport|USHGA|USHGF|world record|Zapata

Jayne DePanfilis <jayne@ushga.org>, Executive Director, USHGA and USHGF, writes:

I discussed sporting licenses with the NAA yesterday and more specifically, the possibility of obtaining "free" sporting licenses for the less than 100 USHGA member pilots who might apply for one. The NAA's primary concern regarding the issuance of free sporting licenses to USHGA pilots is not the potential loss of revenue, for example, 100 licenses x $35.00 each, as much as it is the danger(my choice of wording) of setting a precedent. Even though the USHGA member pilots require relatively few licenses, there are other associations that require larger numbers of them that provide a larger source of revenue to the NAA. The NAA simply can't afford to set a precedent of offering free licenses.

Also, it is my understanding that the SSA and AMA do include sporting licenses with their memberships but what I did not know until yesterday is that these associations are paying an additional fee for their right to issue the licenses. The fee is in addition to the per member assessment etc. for their NAA affiliate membership dues. The current management of the NAA did not negotiate these arrangements.

I also asked NAA about the relatively "high" cost of world record attempts for hang glider and paraglider pilots. The USHGA was not in a position to manage the record kit paperwork at the time the NAA agreed to manage this process for us. The USHGA staff is not in a position to manage this paperwork today. The USHGA has had as many as nine employees at one time in the past but today, we have 4.5 staff persons in the office.

It is my understanding that it is not the NAA's goal to process the record setting paperwork as much as it is to be sure the paperwork is forwarded to FAI. I guess the NAA is a conduit to the FAI for this process. You may understand better than I do. In any case, I also believe that the USHGA Board decided at some point in the recent past that the fees associated with world record attempts should not be paid by the USHGA membership at large since so few pilots are engaged in these activities. I believe the USHGA intentionally implemented a policy that required the pilots to deal with the NAA directly on world record attempts.

Chris Muller, a paraglider pilot (super guy), and resident of Canada, attended the WRE in Zapata this month and the US hang glider and paraglider pilots became even more frustrated about these fees when Chris told them that he pays only $5.00 for record attempts. This prompted some of the US pilots to contact me to find out why they have to pay so much more. When I explained this situation to the NAA, they commented that "someone is paying" for that record attempt. Someone, somewhere along the way, is paying an amount in addition to the $5.00 for the record attempt. I guess this seems obvious now that I think about it. I don't know if the Canadian government or another entity subsidizes these efforts, perhaps, you know Davis.

Finally, I was asked to approach the NAA by numerous competition pilots/record breaking pilots to try to negotiate "away" the sporting license fees for you. I believe I did a good job of advocating this position but I regret to report that I was unable to convince the NAA that they should "at least" issue free sporting licenses to the top 100 pilots in the USA. I explained to the NAA that I thought it would be a great public relations coup for them to issue free sporting licenses to USHGA member pilots but the NAA simply can't afford to give away sporting licenses even if it means they have to forego positive publicity.

I understand the NAA's position but I don't think I have enough of a history or background on this issue to have a definitive opinion. I was a true advocate on our behalf but I consider myself to be more of a reporter of the results of our discussion in this venue. My limited experience with the NAA indicates that they are eager to serve the USHGA but I'm not exactly sure how to maximize the benefits of our affiliate membership in this association.

The NAA coordinated a meeting between sport aviation association executives and managers in March. I was unable to attend the meeting and Dennis Pagen graciously agreed to attend in my place. The NAA provided an opportunity for these parties to develop a common ground and consensus on some of the more serious issues confronting us today, like airspace regulations and insurance. I think the NAA would like to facilitate more of these meetings on our behalf. I think they try to be a "neutral" party capable of bridging political differences and helping involved parties to work together in a cooperative manner.

Discuss the NAA at OzReport.com/forum/phpBB2

Discuss "Jayne on the NAA" at the Oz Report forum   link»

The Spanish ATOS “incident”

Mon, Jul 7 2003, 6:00:05 pm GMT

accident|aerotow|airline|airspace|altitude|Angelo Crapanzano|bridle|Carlos Avila|certification|cloud|control frame|DHV|environment|equipment|Felix Ruehle|Florida|foot launch|general aviation|GPS|harness|injury|job|landing|military|Moyes Xtralite|parachute|Ron Richardson|safety|site|spin|Swift|tail|technique|tow|towing|tumble|USHGA|Wallaby Ranch|winch

David Cross <d.cross@chello.nl> writes:

I have recently had the unfortunate experience of departing controlled flight in an ATOS rigid wing hang glider. I have written this report to share the experience with my fellow aviators so that any lessons learnt may be shared and the accident assessed by those with a better insight in this field than I.

Description of Flight Conditions

I had launched in the mid afternoon with an aero tow from Aerotow.com's facilities near the town of Avila in central Spain. I was planning to fly some cross country under the tuition of the highly experienced Ron Richardson. It was my second flight of the day. On the previous flight I had found the conditions to be weak with the thermals broken and the climbs poor and I had not been able to stay up for long. The afternoon however improved with the cloud base lifting to about 7000' altitude (average ground elevation of 3000'), with promising cumulus development downwind to the east and no sign of the previous day's overdevelopment.

The second aero tow was bumpy but easy to handle on the ATOS with its excellent control harmony between pitch and roll. I was waved off in some lift over a small ridgeline to the south east of the field. I again found the lift to be broken and the climb weak. Ron was at this stage further to the east overhead the town and was calling a 300'/min climb on the averager. As I was at this stage too low to get over to him I focused on what I had in order to build more altitude. I scratched up to 4800' altitude and then ran for a good looking cumulus on the way to Ron's position.

Loss of Control

Entering the Thermal

I rolled right hand into the lift under the cumulus and worked hard to centre it. The conditions were choppy but not rough and smoothed out somewhat above 5000' altitude to a steady 300 fpm up. The conditions downwind were now looking really good and through each turn I was scanning to pick up Ron's Avian Cheetah on the horizon, and I could hear Darren Blackman heading in towards us on his Swift. Things were at last coming together after a week of poor conditions. I was relaxed, thoroughly enjoying the ATOS and looking forward to the afternoons flying.

Turn Reversal

I had in the last turn noticed a slight increase in lift in the southern sector of my circle. I glanced down to see if there were any birds marking the core and was presented with a magnificent stork circling left hand counter flow to me with slightly intersecting circles. After one more turn I saw that (as always) he was doing a better job than I and so I planned a turn reversal into his circle.

The reversal worked out well. As the stork slid under my nose I experienced a moderate pitch up from the stronger lift and eased the bar in to lower the nose and accelerate while rolling out of the right hand turn into a left hand circle. Due to the fair conditions I had been thermalling at 40-45 km/h (25-28 mph) indicated airspeed (IAS) with 20-25° of bank and had felt very comfortable at this speed.

(editor’s note: Unless the thermal is absolutely light (50-100 fpm) and full with no turbulence, I’m flying at 34-38 mph. The speeds indicated above are much too slow for the conditions described.)

As I had now accelerated into the stronger lift I estimate that the IAS was approximately 48-50 km/h (30 mph) as I started the reversal. The flap was set at 8-10°. The reversal was initiated with moderate spoiler application - I estimate ⅓ to ½ deflection. The altitude was now 6000' (about 2500' AGL due to the ridge below).

Departing Controlled Flight

As the left hand turn was established I felt a light short period aerodynamic buffet on the control frame and almost simultaneously experienced a very rapid nose down pitch rotation through approximately 90° of pitch. I estimate the pitch rotation rate to be 50 -60°/sec. There was also some left hand roll rotation, although this was less than the amount of pitch rotation. I was not aware of any significant yaw.

As the departure started my assessment was that the glider was auto-rotating and that I was in the incipient stage of a spin. I had been thermalling with the bar in the upper chest to lower chin position. As the nose down pitch started I rapidly moved the bar in to the mid chest position in an attempt to reduce the angle of attack, un-stall the wing and stop the autorotation. This appeared to stop the left roll rotation rate but had little effect on the rate of nose down pitch. During the latter part of the initial nose down rotation I estimate that the g loading on my body was 0 - 0.5 g (I felt almost weightless).

The glider then appeared to stabilize very briefly in the vertical nose down position before rotating extremely rapidly in pitch to the inverted position. This second rotation was violent and uncontrollable. As it happened I felt a powerful rearward pull from my hang strap and the control bar was pulled from my grip. I was thrown hard into the undersurface of the glider which was now inverted, next to the A frame. I estimate that this pitch down rate was well in excess of 90°/sec.

The glider now stabilized in the inverted position while descending in what appeared to be a relatively gentle oscillatory spiral. I was somewhat disorientated at this point and so may not be too accurate about the motion of the glider. I do however recall some spiral motion and some oscillation above and below the horizon.

I was lying on the undersurface of the wing to the left of and outside the A frame. I immediately checked the leading edges and tips and observed no apparent structural damage. I assessed that I had sufficient altitude and attempted to right the glider and reached for the A frame to do this. When I grasped the left down tube to attempt to right the glider, the glider entered a very disorientating oscillatory rotation but remained inverted. I assume this was caused by spoiler deflection when I moved the A frame.

After two rapid rotations it did not appear to be recovering. At this stage I was losing situational awareness with respect to the height remaining for recovery. In addition the gliders unstable motion had me concerned about the possibility of being knocked unconscious.

Parachute Deployment

I thus looked for clear air and deployed my emergency parachute hard in the direction of rotation half way between the right hand wingtip and the keel. The parachute deployed immediately and then appeared to semi collapse as the glider was rotated by the parachute deployment into the upright position, swinging me hard to hang to the outside of the A frame. The parachute then reopened immediately.

The system of parachute, glider and pilot now became extremely unstable with the parachute and the glider appearing to work in opposition. The glider appeared to accelerate and pitch nose up, causing the chute to collapse and then re-open before the cycle was repeated by the glider. From my vantage point the parachute was describing a sine curve-like path across the horizon while collapsing partially and re-opening in sequence with the pitch motion of the glider.

The glider and parachute appeared to be rotating rapidly about each other with the centre of this rotation somewhere between the glider and the parachute. At no stage was the parachute positioned above the glider. The centripetal acceleration of this system rapidly became very high. I estimate the g loading to be approximately 3 g and I was swung out helplessly under the wing clear of the A frame unable to control the system at all.

Stabilizing the System

I now broadcast a Mayday call, and informed Ron that I had deployed the parachute and was going down. I described my status and informed him that it did not look promising. At this stage the rate of descent and particularly the angular rotation appeared to me to be very high and I was sure that ground impact in this configuration would have severe consequences.

After several high g rotations I managed to grab the hang strap behind my neck and pull myself toward the A frame and grasp a down tube. Adrenaline is a wonderful thing. I then pulled myself into the A frame. This had an immediate positive effect. The parachute stabilized above the glider, the angular velocity reduced and the g loading reduced. I was now descending through about 500' AGL with a moderate oscillation but no angular rotation at all. I now called Ron to inform him that the situation was under control and proceeded to describe my probable touchdown position to him.

Touchdown

I descended onto the slope of a rocky tree covered ridge. Before impact I positioned myself as high into the A frame as possible as I was not sure what the rate of descent was and I wished to protect myself from any impact on what appeared to be very rocky terrain. I kept my legs bent to absorb as much shock as possible.

I was fortunate to impact into the crown of a moderately sized tree. The A frame took much of the initial impact of the branches. The glider was then swung out of the top of the tree throwing me out of the A frame. As I fell to the ground the glider hooked onto a branch and my fall was arrested with my feet 12cm off the ground. I was completely uninjured. I transmitted to Ron that I was down and safe and that he should cancel any ambulance.

The only apparent damage to the glider was a broken main spar and associated sail damage approximately ⅓ in from the right wingtip. This occurred on ground impact and not in flight. My assessment was that the glider was completely undamaged until ground contact.

Discussion

As with any aviation accident there are several lessons to be learnt. Most accidents are not caused by a single event but by a combination of factors. Often an accident could have been prevented if just one of these factors, however minor it may have seemed at the time, could have been identified and stopped. I will now discuss my background, what I think may have been the contributing factors to this accident and the lessons learnt from it. This is obviously my subjective opinion and I welcome any discussion on these points that may offer a more informed insight.

Flying Experience and Background

I am a USHGA intermediate rated pilot who has been flying for three years. I did my initial training in the French Alps mountain launching and completed my training at Wallaby Ranch where I also obtained an aero tow rating. I did a further foot launching course at Lookout Mountain where I obtained cliff launch, flat slope launch and assisted windy cliff launch ratings. My flying has taken place mostly in Florida and the Alps and has always been under the supervision of more experienced pilots. I currently fly a Moyes Xtralite. One month prior to the accident I had flown under the supervision of Chris Dawes in the UK where I did some winch foot launch training and some aero towing as an early season refresher. Prior to this I had last flown the previous late summer in the Alps.

I am a current airline pilot flying Boeing 747's and a current Air Force reserve pilot on fighter type aircraft. I hold a Glider Pilot's License although I am not at present current on sailplanes. I have some experience flying paragliders although I have not yet completed my license. My total flying experience is 8000 hours.

I have mentioned the military experience as I feel it is relevant with respect to my experience in spinning three axis control aircraft. My air force background has provided me with extensive spin training. I have been fortunate to have had the opportunity of spinning a variety of aircraft, from military trainers and fighters to general aviation aircraft, aerobatic aircraft and sailplanes.

Two weeks prior to this accident I carried out a maintenance test flight on a military trainer that included several multi turn full spins and recoveries. I thus feel that I may be considered current as far as spin identification, entry and recovery on three axis aircraft is concerned. This has relevance as there has been much discussion about the advantages of doing spin training on three axis aircraft before flying rigid wing hang gliders.

ATOS Experience

I had come to Spain specifically for the opportunity of flying the ATOS. At the time of the accident I had flown 11 flights on the ATOS for a total of 5.00 flying hours. All flight had been under the supervision of Felix Ruehle and I had been extensively and professionally briefed by him on all aspects of the glider.

Although this was my first experience on a rigid wing hang glider I had felt comfortable and confident on the ATOS from the first flight. I had on the second flight in smooth evening conditions flown the glider to the stall and found the recovery to be simple. I had confidence thermalling the glider in the moderate conditions I had experienced and at no stage had any reservations about the handling of the glider. I found the control harmony particularly pleasant and aero towing simple.

(editor’s note: An inexperienced hang glider pilot, new to an ATOS, was flying it too slow in a thermal.)

Equipment

The glider was a standard ATOS. I had for most of the week prior to the accident been flying another standard ATOS. The hang point for the accident glider (as on the previous glider) had been adjusted towards the forward centre of gravity (C of G) limit, appropriate to my hook in weight. On the accident glider my hang position was slightly higher than that of the glider I had flown previously in the week and the trim speed was slightly lower. Both the hang position and the trim speed were well within safe limits. The glider was fitted with an A.I.R. horizontal stabilizer.

I was using a Woody Valley Tenax harness with the parachute mounted on the right chest. The harness was fitted with a Metamorfosi Conar 18 Gore parachute, which was just over one year old and had recently been repacked by myself. No swivel was fitted to the bridle. My weight is 72 kg making a hook in weight of 87kg.

Airspeed information was provided by a Brauniger Galileo set to indicated airspeed (IAS) mode and a mechanical pitot system fitted by Felix. I used the mechanical system for airspeed reference as I had not yet calibrated the Galileo and was not sure of the reliability of the airspeed display.

Departure from Controlled Flight

I feel that the departure from controlled flight had two distinct phases, a non divergent autorotation phase, and a divergent pitch instability phase.

Autorotation Phase

The autorotation phase I would describe as a gust induced stall in the turn followed by an autorotation and an incipient spin (the incipient stage of the spin being where the aerodynamic and gyroscopic effects of the spin are still influenced by the initial flight path of the glider - in this case a left hand turn). Although the nose down rotation of this phase was rapid it did not feel to me to be divergent. I thus do not feel that the gust had at this stage placed the wing at an AOA/hang point loading combination that had exceeded any static stability margins.

I was surprised by the limited aerodynamic stall warning and the rate of the initial nose down rotation. For these reasons I think the gust onset was significant and rapid. All my previous spinning experience in aircraft had led me to expect an initial rotation rate in roll and yaw that equaled or exceeded any initial nose down pitch rotation. As the initial nose down rotation started I had reduced the AOA aggressively. This seemed to stop any further roll or yaw rotation but had little effect on the rate of nose down pitch rotation. At no stage did the glider enter a stabilized spin.

I feel that there are several factors that could have contributed to the initial autorotation.

Firstly the glider was trimmed slightly slower than that to which I had been used to on the previous ATOS I had flown. As stated this was well within safe limits but may have caused a tendency towards slightly slower flight if I was distracted.

Secondly, I was using flap to thermal. This would move the bar position slightly back and I would, if focused primarily on bar position, have the tendency to move the bar further forward than required.

Thirdly, I had completed a turn reversal prior to the autorotation and the spoiler deflection would have caused some nose up pitching moment. If not corrected this would cause an obvious reduction in IAS and place the glider closer to the stall.

All the above factors are conducive to slower flight. However I am accustomed to flying aircraft that require accurate speed control and feel that I was very aware of the IAS while thermalling. I was also aware that the spin behavior of rigid wing gliders can be unpredictable and had no desire to explore that environment. My thermalling speed of 42-45 km/h (26 mph) felt comfortable for the conditions I was experiencing. I have since been informed that it was perhaps on the low side but not unsafe.

(editor’s note: Pilot is unaware that he is flying too slow.)

I had thermalled at similar speeds in equivalent conditions for most of the week without ever approaching any stall margins. The accuracy of the airspeed reference must also be considered. As mentioned previously my primary reference was the mechanical pitot system as I felt it was more accurate than my as yet un-calibrated electronic reference.

Some points with respect to the turn reversal technique. I normally unload the wing (thus reducing the AOA) before initiating any reversal in order to improve the roll rate. This obviously also results in an increase in IAS. Whether my technique was sufficient to counter any pitch up due to spoiler deflection may be debated. I did not notice any significant pitch up during this particular reversal. My limited experience on the ATOS could of course preclude this.

In addition I had experienced acceleration on entering the increased lift prior to the reversal. I had countered the nose up pitch that this had caused and so feel that my IAS margins on entry to the turn reversal were probably sufficient for normal conditions. I had as well been briefed on the "rule of thumb" safe range for forward and rearward bar positions and at all times flew within this range.

I thus think there must have been some significant gust effect present. Simply approaching the stall in a turn should not result in the almost immediate and rapid rotation experienced with minimal stall warning. I have described the conditions as moderate. I was experiencing an average climb of 300 fpm with maximum instantaneous readings of 1000 fpm.

However, Ron Richardson reported some strong turbulence while descending through the airspace I had been flying in, shortly after I deployed the parachute. My assessment is that a gust rapidly exceeded the critical AOA of the wing. As I was not yet fully established in a stable turn, there would have been some asymmetric loading on the wing, possibly resulting in the auto-rotation. I feel that this is supported by the fact that my rapid reduction in the AOA had no appreciable effect on the pitch rotation rate.

Pitch Instability Phase

I will now discuss what I consider to be the second phase of the departure. During the initial auto-rotation I had not experienced any reduction in g loading on my body - the hang point still felt loaded. Although the initial nose down rotation was high, I still felt that I had some control input and that the glider would recover. However, as the glider passed through about 60° nose down I experienced a reduction in g loading and felt almost weightless.

From this point I felt I no longer had control of the glider and I was unable to hold the bar in any longer. This is when the rapid rotation to the inverted position occurred and I lost my grip on the control bar. Perhaps the excessive AOA of the wing combined with the unloading of the hang point caused the static stability margins of the wing to be exceeded, causing a divergent rotation in pitch. The first auto-rotation phase initially felt controllable. The second phase of pitch instability was definitely not controllable.

Lessons Learnt

Thermalling at higher speed, steeper bank angles and higher g loadings, while not necessarily providing an increase in stall margin, will improve the damping in pitch and make a departure less likely.

It would be of value to calculate the exact stall speeds for the actual wing loading at various appropriate bank angles. With an accurate IAS reference sufficient margins could be applied to these calculated stall speeds for safer thermalling. An accurate IAS reference is obviously necessary. Of even more value would be a vane type AOA reference (Here's hoping!).

I found the ATOS easy and a pleasure to fly. However, in retrospect I feel that more time spent exploring the performance of the glider in smooth air would have been of benefit. I think in particular, the effect of flap on trim speeds and bar position, spoiler effect on pitch in turn reversals and approaches to the stall in wings level and turning flight should have been more fully explored before flying in more challenging conditions.

I think that my initial reaction to the auto-rotation phase was correct. Moving the bar in reduces the AOA and places the centre of gravity in the best possible position for dive recovery. Should this happen again I will do the same while attempting to hold on tighter. I do however feel that it was impossible to maintain grip on the control bar during the rotation to the inverted position.

Some comments on pilot experience. I was very excited to be offered the opportunity to fly the ATOS by Felix, as I consider myself a low time hang glider pilot. His briefing was comprehensive and gave me confidence in the glider while making me aware of how it differed from other gliders I had flown. I flew the glider conservatively and felt very confident with the general handling.

The afternoon following the accident I flew another standard ATOS in moderate thermic conditions for a 1 ½ hour flight. While understandably nervous at first the pleasant handling of the glider allowed me to settle down and soon regain my confidence. In summary I experienced nothing in the handling of the ATOS that should exceed the abilities of an intermediate pilot. In most respects I found the ATOS easier to fly than an intermediate flex wing hang glider.

Some discussion on three axis spin training for rigid wing pilots. I feel the main benefit of this would be spin entry recognition and reduced disorientation. The spin entry techniques and recovery procedures for a three axis aircraft are different to that of a rigid wing hang glider and themselves can vary dependant on the design of the aircraft. Practicing these procedures would I feel have limited benefit for rigid wing pilots and may even reinforce incorrect techniques. In this accident the main benefit to me of my spin training was recognition of the initial situation and orientation in the unusual attitudes experienced.

Some points on the parachute deployment. It has been suggested, considering the glider was undamaged while inverted, that I could have tried harder to right the glider before deploying the parachute. In retrospect I am glad I did not. I lost a lot of height trying to stabilize the spinning parachute/glider combination. Had I deployed the parachute any later I might have impacted before stabilizing the system. At the time I did not feel that this would have been survivable.

I have discussed this with Angelo Crapanzano from Metamorfosi. He commented that although I was experiencing high g loadings, because the centre of gravity of the pilot/glider/parachute system would have been very close to the pilot/glider combination, my rotational speed would actually have been quite low. In addition he said that my descent rate would perhaps have been even less than when I had stabilized the system. He thus feels that even when the system was not stabilized, it was survivable. The perception from the pilot's point of view remains unpleasant.

In addition it is not certain how the glider may have reacted in the attempt to right it and there is a strong possibility of pilot injury in attempting this. This may then preclude parachute deployment. I thus feel strongly that if one is fortunate to survive a loss of control situation uninjured, the priority is to get the parachute deployed immediately. Considering the instability after parachute deployment, I feel the priority should be to get ones mass as close as possible to the hang point.

Angelo Crapanzano recommends that one gets as close as possible to the nose of the glider, or at least in front of the hang point. This can however be difficult and the A frame is a familiar refuge when under stress and can provide impact protection. It would have helped if I had held onto some part of the A frame before deploying the parachute, as this might have prevented me from being flung away from the A frame as the parachute deployed and righted the glider.

Had I been able to remain closer to the A frame the spiral motion might not have developed. I also feel that some thought should be given to the option of releasing from the glider prior to parachute deployment. All my complications were due to the fact that I was still attached to the glider.

I am very pleased that I had the Conar HG18 parachute. The rate of descent once stabilized was acceptable and the opening time impressively fast. It worked as advertised.

Some discussion on communications and search and rescue procedures. I was able to transmit a Mayday to Ron Richardson seconds after deploying the parachute as I had a transmit button fixed to my thumb. Ron demonstrated professionalism and true airmanship. He acknowledged my call, was overhead my position within minutes, plotted GPS co-ordinates and arranged a rescue. He then landed in a difficult location and was at the accident site within 30 minutes.

Had I been seriously injured Ron's actions would have been potentially life saving. The lessons here are to always fly with someone, be able to communicate effectively with them, even under duress, and always be prepared to assist effectively in an emergency. I had water in my harness but no first aid kit or emergency rations. This has been rectified.

Conclusion

In summary, I suggest that this accident was a result of a gust exceeding the critical angle of attack of the wing by a large margin. This resulted in auto-rotation with a rapid nose down pitch and unloading of the hang point. The static stability margin of the wing was exceeded and the wing experienced a divergent rotation to the inverted position.

Contributory factors were the relatively low indicated airspeed while thermalling, the effect of flap on the control bar position, pilot technique in the turn reversal and the pitch up effect of spoiler deflection.

Flex Ruehle’s Comments

I have attached an email from Felix Ruehle with his comments on the report and the incident.

You report is excellent however I think it's hard to see how quickly or slowly everything happened because my experience is that reports from stress situations follow a different clock.

Since hang gliding was born turbulence can be a problem for safe flying. However different developments improved the safety. One of the latest developments is the fixed V-tail with a lifting airfoil from A-I-R. How does it work? The glider is designed to have the same pitch up moment with tail like the standard ATOS with 0° flap.

With thermal, take off and landing flap setting the pitch up moment is significantly higher with the V-tail. Additionally the V-tail increases pitch damping very significantly with all flap settings. Of course instead of a tail the sweep angle can be increased too to get the same pitch damping effect. However this didn't work out as well for the ATOS, because higher sweep in combination with wing bending would cause dynamic problems.

With the V-tail the glider flies significantly more comfortable. In opposite to the opinion of some pilots, that a positive pitch up moment only protects a glider from tumbling, this is not the case. It is a result of several flight incidents with all types of hang gliders and as well with the hang glider drop test made by the DHV a few years ago that even with a certified hang glider it is possible to tumble.

According to my opinion the main parameters are: Pitch damping which can be increased by higher speed and by the wing area distribution in flight direction. For example a higher sweep angle or a tail, increase pitch damping as well as a forward pilot position. Pitch up moment. This is the moment which must be above a certain value for certification. Small distance from aerodynamic centre to CG.

For example a short A-frame is positive. High airspeed in relation to the turbulence is positive too.

The incident

The air was not very smooth this day and there was over development with rain shortly after the incident at this spot. Ron who landed close to help Dave (thanks Ron) hit some strong turbulence too. However, the day wasn't that rough that pilots usually would stop flying.

According to my opinion the tumbling from Dave was caused due to low airspeed in relation to the turbulence. The thermal speed under this condition was already little slow. The reversal turn reduced the speed probably further. This for example is a very good practice in smooth condition, doing reversal with constant speed. Take care: If you don't pull in during the reversal the speed drops.

I flew to the same spot the next day and felt comfortable with about 55km/h (34 mph) as min. thermal speed. This day looked smoother to me as the previous day.

Does the tail improve the safety? At the online contest (olc) 2002 the ATOS is the glider which has flown the most km before any other wing (including flex wing) and the ATOS flew much more km than other rigids, too. Many pilots have flown sometimes under extremely hard conditions and have reported the good behavior under turbulent condition.

It looks to me like active flying is getting more and more important. With the fast gliders the pilots have the possibility to fly with extra speed or high bank angle without losing too much of performance and it looks too me like the ATOS with the new V-tail is a step to improve pilots safety to a very high level even with the incident of Dave.

Under strong condition the glider gets extra stability with high bank angle and higher speed. While doing a reversal you can easily lose speed and the pilot has no extra g loading. I think this can be an interesting discussion how different pilots handle turbulent air.

Discuss "The Spanish ATOS “incident”" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Flytec/Quest Air WRE – a little flight to Laredo

Mon, Jul 7 2003, 2:00:00 pm EDT

airspace|Bo Hagewood|cloud|David "Dave" Glover|David Glover|glide ratio|Ken Ward|Lawrence "Pete" Lehmann|Mike Barber|Paris Williams|Quest Air|Ron Gleason|Swift|tow

When the clouds first form at 9 AM a strange thing happens. They form into lenticulars at 2,000’. It appears that the winds just above the forming clouds are going faster than the winds that the clouds are forming in. This lasts for about 45 minutes then the clouds take on their normal cumulus shape.

I’m first in the air at 9:55 for a 1000 meter MSL high tow to a 1000’ over cloud base. It is so beautiful and smooth up there and the wind is blowing strong out of the southeast. This high a tow is perfect for making sure that you can make it to the St. Ignacio road, the first pubic road to the north.

I find lift at 1,700’ AGL and work it back to cloud base 2,200’ AGL. For the most part I find that the lift is better with 300’ of cloud base, that it drops off to about half strength between 300’ and 600’ below base, and that I must work a bit above zero 1000’ below cloud base.

Therefore I try to stay high right under the cloud, but there is a problem. The winds are taking me toward the Laredo airspace and I need to jump cloud streets. Whenever I do I get down below cloud base in the weaker lift and have to slowly work my way back up again.

The lift is plentiful and consistently under the forming clouds, it’s just that I’m working between 1,000’ and 2,000’ AGL throughout the flight. There’s no problem staying up but there is a problem going where you want to go with a twenty mile an hour wind that wants to put you into the airport.

I’m really enjoying the flight especially working with the light lift and really maximizing it. I drifting quickly over areas that will require long walk outs if I go down there, so I’m very motivated to stay up no matter how weak the lift or how low I am.

I can hear everyone behind me flying and a few of them seem to have forgotten or never understood that they have to get around the airspace early on. Some are just drifting downwind toward Mexico.

Finally as I approach Laredo I lose my focus as I’m over more friendly territory, I’m afraid that I won’t be able to get around the airport, and I want to get going faster if I’m going to have a long flight. The morning forecast was not that good with lots of moisture to the north, so it’s hard to get real motivated for a long flight. I land at 34 miles out a little later 11 AM. Everyone else goes down behind me.

These early morning flights are quite special. During glides I had an average glide ratio of 71:1. During climbs I was averaging only 67 fpm. The third of the time while gliding that I was actually rising I averaged 280 fpm.

Tomorrow we move to a launch area twenty miles to the east to make it easier to get around the Laredo airport.

Scott Huber is here with an ATOS, Ken Ward with a Swift. Bill Ayers with a flex wing as well as Chuck (so his boss won’t know he’s here). Pete Lehmann, Mike Barber, Paris Williams, Bo Hagewood, Ron Gleason, David Glover, and Dave Prentice. Junko left for Austria this morning.

Discuss the WRE at OzReport.com/forum/phpBB2

Discuss "Flytec/Quest Air WRE – a little flight to Laredo" at the Oz Report forum   link»

On-line sectionals

Fri, Jun 27 2003, 6:00:02 pm EDT

airspace

Interested in staying out of controlled airspace?

http://map.aeroplanner.com/mapping/chart/smartchart.cfm

Click on a map/sectional that you are interested in. You can just look at an area that you are interested in, or download the whole sectional ($15) or a “chunk” or it ($5.00). You can download two different chart viewers at http://www.aeroplanner.com/tools/dlcharts.cfm. Both are pretty lame, but I use the smaller version.

You can also use their on-line airport directory (http://map.aeroplanner.com/mapping/chart/aptsel.cfm) to get information about a nearby airport. For example, http://map.aeroplanner.com/mapping/chart/aptrpt.cfm?A=7&id=MEV

I prefer to use the electronic versions of the sections as I always know where they are.

Discuss controlled airspace at OzReport.com/forum/phpBB2

Discuss "On-line sectionals" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Flytec/Quest Air WRE – a blue day

Wed, Jun 25 2003, 6:00:00 pm EDT

airspace|Charles "Charlie" Baughman|Chris Muller|cloud|cloud street|glide ratio|Juan Ramirez Rpo|Lawrence "Pete" Lehmann|Paris Williams|Quest Air|record|Ron Gleason|Swift|tow|triangle|weather|Zapata

A couple of days ago when Bo went 165 miles to land near Uvalde he found himself soaring a 60 foot gravel pit hillside for twenty minutes to get up enough to make it over to the road to land. Then yesterday he landed in the high fenced-in drug vehicle impoundment lot near Laredo. Took out a downtube. Bo’s looking for Paris to get here ASAP.

Today Renato Ramirez, the president of the local IBC bank, came by with a reporter and photographer from the Laredo Times in tow. Renato has been very kind to us and especially to the paraglider pilots, setting up a hangar, a new long road, plenty of shade and a shower and water on his property east of Zapata. The paraglider pilots – Chris Muller and Dave Prentice - have been getting 2,000’ high tows and loving the facilities. We may all be moving over there soon to make it easier to get around the Laredo airspace. So far that hasn’t been a problem.

With only a few cu’s we were reluctant to get going early today. Pete Lehmann gave it a try on the Attack Falcon and Gary went out for a check ride in the Sparrowhawk to make sure that the CG was right. He wanted to get it to slow down in the thermal and he finally got it to do that.

The strong winds from our favorite direction, south-southeast, combined with the light lift that he finds at 11 AM dissuade Pete from going down wind. Gary in a plane that can go searching for lift finds 700 to 800 fpm.

The long distance forecast indicated that the dry line and a front line have combined to stop us at about 300 miles out. The lack of clouds in the morning keeps us from going out to check the lift north of Zapata early in the day. Later starting flights would have been very possible.

Yesterday, things were really magical as they can only be here in south Texas. When I looked over the record of my flight I noticed a couple of interesting values. My average glide ratio during the flight was 62:1 over the ground. Strong winds and light sink/lift were responsible for that.

I climbed a total of 22,600’ during this flight, 12,100’ during straight flight. I only circled for 27% of the flight time, which is quite a low percentage for such a weak day. My actual climb rate while flying straight in lift was higher than my average climb rate in thermals. Why?

Well, because I’m thermaling to stay up in really weak lift near the ground. I have to thermal because at that point I have no other choice if I want to stay up. When I get high and under a cloud street I can go straight and glide under the lift which is stronger (but still only averaging 250 fpm Vs. 180 fpm in the thermals). One third of the time I was flying straight I was in rising air.

Ron Gleason, Charlie Baughman, Rick from Montana showed up today so we’ve got quite a group of pilots here. Paraglider, flex wing, rigid wing, and Swift pilots with Juno from Japan. More pilots coming in this weekend, the hangar is filling up.

Charlie, the airport manager, and another big local supporter took much of the crew for a ride in one of the Aero Commanders up to Laredo and they are all going out to dinner up there before driving back. In fact, this whole WRE is a party.

Weather looks iffy for two days for long distance flights, but we may get light winds on Friday for triangle or out and return records. The front is in north Texas tomorrow and may come through here on Friday.

Discuss the WRE at OzReport.com/forum/phpBB2

Discuss "Flytec/Quest Air WRE – a blue day" at the Oz Report forum   link»

WRE – it looks like a record breaking day »

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

airspace|Andrew "Drew" Harris|cloud|cloud street|Jamie Shelden|Mike Barber|record|site|towing|world record|Zapata

We awake to the over running. Low dark clouds are wiping out of the Gulf about a thousand feet over our head. The light wind day that Gary had predicted a few days before is now a classic Zapata go long day and we hurry to the airport after checking the forecasts out ourselves.

At the airport I’m greeted with a site that I haven’t witnessed in three years. The strong winds are coming from a bit south of southeast. The windsock at the airport shows a bit of its mouth as we approach the southeast/northwest runway from the west. It is so great to see this wind direction which will help carry us past the Laredo airspace.

On the way to airport I call up Gary who’s driving in north Texas heading to us as fast as he can. Unfortunately for him, but great for us he’s got a strong headwind as he heads south. He’s pulling a trailer with the equivalent of a VW van and the headwind is slowing him down.

He tells me to be careful because tomorrow, Monday, looks much better because of higher wind conditions. The windcast also indicated this although Sunday also looked very good. I hadn’t seen just wind forecasts for two years now. It was just exciting seeing how good things might finally be.

Pete, Bo, and Mike Barber decide they are going to go for it anyway. The cloud streets have been forming up since 8 AM, and Bo and Pete will be able to get off before 10:30 AM. Mikey is off by 10:45. The clouds are still thick, with some vertical development by then, and the streets are still there.

The cloud streets at the airport.

The clouds continue all day. Often we’ll get a little break as the morning lift spreads out and reforms and the cloud base rises. Today, the clouds continue to form without a break. It is spectacular.

Pete and Bo get together under a cloud street and head north. Cloud base is 2,400’ MSL (2,000’ AGL). By the time Mikey is up it has risen to 3,000’ MSL. This is perfect for morning conditions in Zapata.

Now the only issue is will they go far enough to break the record or just far enough to not be able to get back to Zapata for the supposedly even better days ahead.

At noon we hear that Pete is on the ground 15 miles south of Laredo and that Mikey is going to come over and land with him. There is only one driver out there, Drew, so Mikey wants to get back with him. Bo decides to keep going.

After a bit of a discussion, Drew heads on after Bo and Jamie Sheldon drives Mikey’s car out to get Pete and Mikey. We haven’t heard yet how Bo is doing.

Gary has predicted that the winds near Zapata will back off later in the morning. Dave Prentice is out in the paraglider paddock towing up, but failing to get very far. On his second flight he notices that the winds have backed off about 10 mph.

I go out to the airport at 2:30 and attempt a world record out and return flight. As I climb up from the airport my instrument records a 15 to 20 mph wind out of the southeast. As my declared task would take me up wind 30 miles to the east, I decide that it is not possible today and land. We were hoping to set a new world record every day. Now all our hope rests on Bo.

By six o’clock we had heard that Bo had been more than one hundred miles out, had turned around and was coming back with Drew chasing him. It looks like he will be able to get back in time to be ready for tomorrow. Gary should be here late tonight.

Later in the day I check out the satellite to see if there are puffy cu’s all the way up the state. Instead it looks like there is blow off from the cu-nimbs that formed along the dryline. And the cu’s seemed to have quit about 100 miles out.

Discuss the WRE at OzReport.com/forum/phpBB2

Discuss "WRE – it looks like a record breaking day" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Midwest Regionals – cu nimbs and guys at goal

Sat, Jun 14 2003, 6:03:00 pm GMT

Aeros Combat|Aeros Combat 2|Airborne Climax|airspace|altitude|Bubba Goodman|Carl Wallbank|cloud|competition|Dave Brandt|James "Jim" Lamb|Jim Lamb|Krzysztof "Krys/Kris" Grzyb|Moyes Litespeed|Paris Williams|photo|Rik Bouwmeester|Ron Gleason|sport|tail|tow|Wills Wing|Wills Wing Talon

http://www.flytec.com/mwregionals

Check out the animated track logs (click “Top Tracks” - you have to wait for a few minutes for them to begin animating).

Check out the photo gallery (http://flytec.com/mwregionals/gallery.html)

The FSL forecast shows that there is the possibility of over development, but while I inform the task committee of this possibility I forget to mention it to the pilots. There is large patches of cirrus both north and south in the late morning, and the cu’s are forming slowly and they look soft and weak.

The wind dummies are up and staying up, so it’s a good sign. We’ve got the option of launching at 12:30 PM with a 2 PM start window (way more time than we need to get everyone in the air with four Dragonflies waiting to pull us up).

I notice that Jim Lamb is suiting up early and he’s thinking that its time to go soon after the launch window opens. The task is a 46 mile dog leg to the east south east, away from Class D airspace at Janesville and over to an airport at Monroe where hang gliding pilots use to truck tow.

The five rigid wing pilots all notice that Jim and Dave are getting ready so we all get ready and we are all in line together by ourselves as the flex wing pilots look on. No body wants to be left behind.

We’re up in a few minutes and it is a quick climb to cloud base at 4,400’. The flex wing guys get in line right behind us and everyone other than Paris who has been sitting around in a lawn chair is off before 1 PM. No waiting around today.

The cu’s get thicker and thicker and it looks like we won’t be waiting until the 2 PM start time. Dave Brandt heads out to the south and the rest of us rigid wing pilots up high follow him and Russell out toward the start circle. But Dave doesn’t get up and everyone but Russell turns back to get back up again with the flex wings.

Dave gets lower and lower out on his own, as he’s not willing to come back and join us low, and I’m wondering what the point is. This meet has taught us to work with our friends above all else, and I can’t figure out why Russell and Dave have gone out on their own, way early.

The rest of us are back working lift and getting back up to cloud base. We drift down wind under the clouds and get right up to cloud base and near the start circle circumference. I watch as Ron Gleason and Jim Lamb head out on course as I hold back. Three flex wings cross the line also. I wait and let them check out the lift out in front while I get to start my start time later than them.

Finally I head out and head right for the rigid wings who are five miles out. I get there with their altitude and I’m feeling great. We’ve got six guys together and it looks like we’ll have plenty of helpers.

Eleven miles out we encounter a large cu nimb just to our south. We are working on the northern edge of the cu nimb. The ground is completely shaded. The cu-nimb stretches to the west for another fifteen miles. Thank goodness we are just on the northern side of the cu-nimb and the winds are out of the northeast.

Brad sends over this graphic that shows the raining part of the cu-nimb.

We climb up slowly at first with everyone looking around. Jim and Ron are just above me climbing a little bit better. I have no idea where Russell is.

I’m looking back and seeing Rik Boumeester flashing his wings in a high bank. Ron and Jim who were just above me have gone further along the course line and don’t see Rik a few hundred feet behind us. I go over to him and soon Krzysztof Grzyb and I are two thousand feet over the five guys who’ve gone ahead.

The cu-nimb is right next to us as we head west quickly trying to run past it. Everything is as dark as can be, both the sky and the ground. We continue to find bits of lift on the edge of the cu-nimb and we can see the rain coming down five or ten miles to the south.

As we are circling up I see a lightening strike to the south about five miles away. I’m wondering if the cell is going to come our way. I can see that if we go another ten miles to the west we should be able to get around the storm. I’m hoping that there aren’t any gust fronts or more lightening.

I’m nervous about the storm so I’m leaving lift earlier than usual. I’m leaving everyone behind and I got out fast on my own hoping to get away from the storm. Whoa, I’ve caught up with Russell. I come in under a few hundred feet below him. It is great to be able to cover Russell.

We’re almost to the Albany turnpoint and I climb back to cloud base as Russell heads out. I can see a few of the guys I was with behind me getting up from below. I’ve got to hang with Russell now.

Things are happening fast as it is only an eleven mile leg to goal. I’m at 4,000’ AGL 14 miles out, three miles before the turnpoint. I’m hoping that this is enough with a good tail wind to make it to goal.

Nine miles out I see Russell come in a few hundred feet over my head. We work a bit of lift gaining two hundred feet. I can see the guys behind me at the turnpoint climbing high. Given how low they were when I left them, they must have found much stronger lift than I did.

Four miles out from goal I’m at 1,250’ AGL. That’s a 17:1 glide to goal, so I decide to take the weak lift I’m in and climb 500 feet. Russell continues on to goal to get there first. A few of the pilots behind me catch up and keep going just over my head.

I will have the extra 500’ when I get to goal with 500’ to spare.

Paris started late at 1:45 PM and wins the day getting to goal as the first flex wings. Ron gets across the goal line a few minutes before me. Bubba, Chris and later Dennis comes in.

All the times get moved to 2 PM as everyone started before the 2 PM start clock. The finish times just represent there total time to goal.

Flex wings today:

Place Name Glider Finish Total
1 WILLIAMS Paris Aeros Combat 15:20:06 932
2 PAGEN Dennis Moyes Litespeed 15:34:24 776
3 GOODMAN Bubba Moyes Litespeed 4 15:35:28 756
4 GRZYB Krzysztof Icaro MRX700 15:36:56 742
5 MORRIS Dan Wills Wing Talon 464
6 BURICK Carl Airborne Climax 452
7 OLSSON Andreas Moyes Litespeed 4 420
8 PRESLEY Terry Moyes Litespeed 4 357
9 SAYER Wayne Moyes Litespeed 3 351
10 HAGEWOOD Robert Aeros Combat 2 327
11 CIZAUSKAS Rich Wills Wing FusionSP 258
12 DUGGAN Dan Icaro MR700WRE 68
13 BOUMEESTER Rik Aeros Stealth 59
14 GILLETTE Rhanor Wills Wing Ultra Sport 0

Flex wing totals:

Place Name Glider Total
1 WILLIAMS Paris Aeros Combat 3556
2 PAGEN Dennis Moyes Litespeed 2997
3 OLSSON Andreas Moyes Litespeed 4 2987
4 PRESLEY Terry Moyes Litespeed 4 2899
5 GOODMAN Bubba Moyes Litespeed 4 2461
6 GRZYB Krzysztof Icaro MRX700 2209
7 SAYER Wayne Moyes Litespeed 3 1679
8 HAGEWOOD Robert Aeros Combat 2 1669
9 MORRIS Dan Wills Wing Talon 1416
10 BURICK Carl Airborne Climax 1378
11 CIZAUSKAS Rich Wills Wing FusionSP 1035
12 BOUMEESTER Rik Aeros Stealth 971
13 DUGGAN Dan Icaro MR700WRE 631
14 GILLETTE Rhanor Wills Wing Ultra Sport 409

Rigids today:

Place Name Glider Finish Total
1 GLEASON Ron AIR Atos C 15:35:27 986
2 STRAUB Davis AIR Atos C 15:36:03 930
3 BROWN Russ Flight Designs GhostBuster 15:45:16 793
4 LAMB James AIR Atos C 15:53:01 718
5 BRANDT Dave AIR Atos 274

Rigids total:

Place Name Glider Total
1 STRAUB Davis AIR Atos C 4076
2 BROWN Russ Flight Designs GhostBuster 3716
3 GLEASON Ron AIR Atos C 2815
4 BRANDT Dave AIR Atos 2262
5 LAMB James AIR Atos C 2210
6 BOWEN Campbell Flight Designs Axxess + 2026

Discuss "Midwest Regionals – cu nimbs and guys at goal" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Superflytec PG Championships

Thu, May 29 2003, 6:03:00 pm GMT

airspace|altitude|cloud|competition|Florida|Orlando Stephenson|PG|power|tail|tow|weather

Apparently the weather this last month or so in the mid Atlantic states has been miserable with clouds and rain almost every day and nary a peek of the sun. There seems to be a persistent low pressure over the mid Atlantic states that is responsible for this sorry state of affairs.

Thursday’s conditions.

Down here in Florida the spring has been dominated by west winds, and that has been no different this week, even though the summer wet season conditions have gone away, thankfully. The west winds were stronger than predicted today, so it was quite a good idea that we headed north again to tow paragliders from an open field three miles south of the turnpike.

We called a 44 mile task, the longest of the meet, in light of the predicted high cloud base, moderate lift, and good tail winds. Unfortunately, in order to keep the paragliders out of the Orlando airspace, we needed to give them a somewhat cross wind leg.

We sent them down wind at 80° 21 miles then made them turn to a heading of 30° for 15 miles, before an 8 mile leg at 60° going into goal. It was on this second leg that a number of pilots would go down unable to keep from being blown down wind of the turnpoint.

The red area is the Orlando airspace with a 6,000’ MSL floor.

The winds were predicted to be 5 mph rising to 10 mph at the start of the inversion at 4,500’ out of the west-northwest. Above the start of the inversion they would be stronger up to 25 mph out of the west-southwest. With mixing the winds all the way down were supposed to switch to west-southwest by 3 PM. Apparently they stayed west-northwest all day, making the second leg that much harder.

Most pilots experienced good lift at the tow paddock as soon as they found a thermal, which often meant finding one from down low. In one case low and just in front of the high tension power lines down wind of launch. Some pilots reported 500 fpm as they climbed out to over 5,000’.

Out on the course they were able to get into a convergence zone before the first turnpoint and find 1,100 fpm to 1,400 fpm to almost 6,000’. But it was at the first turnpoint where the helpful winds turned into a hindrance. Pilots were down to 3,000’ at the turnpoint and didn’t have enough altitude to make it cross wind to the next turnpoint.

Pilots who just took the western edge of the turnpoint and immediately turned north were the only ones with an opportunity to make the fifteen miles to the second turnpoint. Others found themselves in the unfortunate position of fighting a 20 mph head wind as they tried to get back on the course line. Many landed nearby the turnpoint.

Three pilots mention that they’ve never seen faster ground speeds on their GPSes. One pilot says that after he landed winds of about 30 mph came through for 20 minutes.

Two pilots made goal. Day Five:

Place Name mph miles Total
1 COHN Josh 29.19 44.6 933
2 HOISINGTON Zach 22.81 44.6 763
3 HUEY Jeff 34.7 553
4 SWAIN Gavin 33.5 542
5 PRENTICE Dave 33.1 537
6 HOFFMAN Doug 28.3 463
7 SPORER Rob 28.2 461
8 BROCK Gary 28.1 459
9 FARRELL Jeff 26.4 418
10 SZAFARYN Len 14.5 158
11 MOOK Tom 3.8 50
12 KEARNEY Bill 2.1 28

After five days:

Place Name Total
1 COHN Josh 3062
2 HUEY Jeff 2448
3 FARRELL Jeff 2224
4 BROCK Gary 2066
5 HOISINGTON Zach 2007
6 PRENTICE Dave 1963
7 SWAIN Gavin 1596
8 SPORER Rob 1163
9 MOOK Tom 1149
10 HOFFMAN Doug 1097
11 SZAFARYN Len 1045
12 KEARNEY Bill 404

Discuss competition at OzReport.com/forum/phpBB2

Discuss "Superflytec PG Championships" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Super Flytec PG Championships

Sat, May 24 2003, 6:03:00 pm GMT

airspace|communication|competition|David "Dave" Glover|David Glover|Gregg "Kim" Ludwig|Josh Cohn|Orlando Stephenson|Oz Report|PG|Quest Air|radio|Russell "Russ" Brown|scooter|tow|towing|winch

This variously-named paragliding competition (recently referred to in the Oz Report as the PG Gator Classic) got under way today with twelve paraglider pilots all towing at Quest Air. Our tow line up setup consisted of Russell Brown’s two wire static tow rig, Gregg McNamee from http://www.graybirdairsports.com/ with his scooter on a platform tow, a big reel winch tow setup, and the simplest and fastest turn-a-round tow system, the static line with a pulley tied to a tree and an ATV. This was more than enough for the twelve competitors.

Some pilots got many tows as we towed them cross wind in light winds down the longer north south runway. Because of the cross winds we weren’t able to get them as high as we did a couple of days ago (1,100’ on that day) and pilots had to scratch their way out of the field from 500’ or less feet. A total of six pilots were able to do so after three hours of towing.

The task was Umatilla airport 30 miles to the northeast given the predicted southwest winds (245°). The 5 to 10 mph winds were in fact about 270°, so it made for tough going in the often light lift. Straight east of Quest you’ll soon find Orlando and controlled airspace starting at a bottom of 6,000’, although getting to 2,100’ was a feat today.

Unlike the past few weeks, there was a much reduced chance of over development and the sky was full of friendly cu’s from 10:30 AM onward. 50 miles to the south there were thunderstorms. It looks like tomorrow should have a further reduced chance of showers. The rest of the week looks good also.

The pilots who did get away generally got away in pairs. Dave Prentice and Josh Cohn were the second pair out. Josh went 20 miles and Dave 24 miles. Dave said that he decided that Josh was getting more help from Dave than Dave was from Josh, so he tried to get away to see if he could shake him. At that point they took very different routes.

These were the longest flights of the day that was worth about 430 points.

David Glover is the meet organizer/director and is handling the launch coordination at the pilot end. I’m down at the other end of the field coordinating the winch end of the launches, basically making sure that the radio communication is clear. Given the long lines, we had Kate in the middle at the road handling the car/truck traffic crossing the lines.

We had to shut down the hang gliding operation for three hours to make sure the paraglider pilots had a chance to get up and out, but the hang glider pilots had good flights before and after the paraglider towing operation. Tomorrow with the west winds, we will be towing from the same location as the hang gliding operation, so we probably won’t have to close them down at all.

Place Name miles Total
1 PRENTICE Dave 24.1 428
2 COHN Josh 20.4 381
3 MOOK Tom 10 250
4 FARRELL Jeff 7.9 222
5 SPORER Rob 7.4 214
6 SZAFARYN Len 6.6 195
7 HOISINGTON Zach 1.2 83
7 BROCK Gary 0.5 83
7 HUEY Jeff 0.4 83
7 SWAIN Gavin 0.4 83
7 KEARNEY Bill 0.4 83
7 HOFFMAN Doug 0 83

Discuss competition at OzReport.com/forum/phpBB2

Discuss "Super Flytec PG Championships" at the Oz Report forum   link»

SeeYou updated (2.3) »

Wed, May 7 2003, 3:00:03 pm EDT

3D|airspace|camera|communication|competition|SeeYou|SeeYou Competition|waypoints

www.seeyou.ws

http://www.seeyou.ws/dload.php (new version)

http://www.seeyou.ws/dload-help.php (new help files)

http://www.seeyou.ws/dload-other.php (US airspace)

Colin J Barry writes:

I can (not so humbly say that) the idea for the "Legend shows the current value of the selected flight parameter" was all mine. The guys at SeeYou implemented it within a week.

I have always been impressed with the level of professionalism of this group.

Major Upgrades: (reverse order of implementation) Version 2.3
+ Communication with MLR
+ SeeYou Competition according to 2003 Annex A
+ SeeYou Competition Help
+ Finnish translation
+ 2003 Airspace for DE,CH,AT,FR,UK,USA
+ Airspace is shown in 3D

Minor Upgrades: (reverse order of implementation) Version 2.3

- Animation with only selected part of flight
- Smoothed 3D camera
- Airspace naming changed to ICAO Classification
- Airspace visible in Graph view
- New graph for Task speed
- New Color scheme for Task speed
- New Flight parameters for Distance on Task, Speed since start, Speed on task
- NMEA Output in Animation
- Legend shows the current value of the selected flight parameter
- Optimized waypoints are named after the closest Waypoint from user database
- Office 2003 Toolbar theme

Discuss SeeYou at OzReport.com/forum/phpBB2

Discuss "SeeYou updated (2.3)" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Jayne DePanfilis visits Oz Report world headquarters

Thu, Apr 17 2003, 3:00:03 pm EDT

airspace|Belinda Boulter|Dragonfly|FAA|flight park|Florida|Jayne DePanfilis|Lookout Mountain Flight Park|Oz Report|sport|Sport Pilot|towing|trike|USHGA

Belinda and I just had a nice visit with Jayne, USHGA executive director, who is here in Florida to meet with various individuals regarding USHGA matters. She’ll be here for a week and will be in contact with the FAA regarding the ongoing Sport Pilot issues.

We’ve known about the Lookout Mountain Flight Park Dragonfly/heavy trike issue for a few days. Jayne says that she has been heavily involved in it trying to get the FAA to reopen the towing operation there. Of course, the issues involved are directly linked to our FAA towing exemption and the upcoming Sport Pilot rules.

The USHGA office and volunteers are working hard to make sure the upcoming FAA regulations are respectful of our standards and practices here in the hang gliding community. Jayne says that the FAA continues to be very impressed with the level of expertise and documentation that comes from the USHGA.

Of course, the big issue for many of us is the use of the Dragonfly and heavier trikes for towing operations. We want the FAA to approve their use for hang glider towing. The FAA wants to do this and it looks like they will. With the LMFP issue, it would be nicer that this happened sooner rather than later.

Hang glider pilots should be aware that the USHGA is not just some little reinsurance agent for hang glider pilots, but is actively working to make sure that hang gliding can continue as a viable sport even when there are other entities that would like to close down the airspace to us. It you are concerned about having continued access to the open sky’s you should support the USHGA.

Discuss "Jayne DePanfilis visits Oz Report world headquarters" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Put flight parks on the sectionals?

Mon, Apr 7 2003, 2:00:05 pm EDT

airspace|altitude|EAA|FAA|flight park|Florida|general aviation|Geoff May|maps|Miles Fagerlie|Orlando Stephenson|photo|radio|Richard Heckman|safety|sailplane|school|tandem|towing|USHGA

Geoff May <GMay@MarathonOil.com> writes:

A couple of years ago I came out to Florida, visiting the Ranch for a couple of weeks before moving on to one of the flying schools at Kissimmee to train for my pilot license. None of the instructors at the flying school were aware of Wallaby and were certainly unaware of how busy the air above it could be. Indeed, Wallaby's location just clear of the Orlando airspace meant that this region was frequently used by the school aircraft for practicing various maneuvers. I don't recall seeing Wallaby marked on any of the FAA charts I flew with at that time.

It seems ridiculous, maybe reckless, that somewhere as busy as Wallaby is not marked on the FAA air maps and has not been widely publicized among the many flying schools in the area.

Richard Heckman <hekdic@worldnet.att.net> writes:

On the marking of Quest and Wallaby on sectionals, there should still be the procedure to do this through the USHGA. I set it up when I was the interface to the FAA. A request should go first to the Regional Director who would forward it to the National Coordinating Committee. The NCC Chairman, if the request is approved, then forwards it to the relevant FAA Office that handles sectionals. I forget which it is since we set it up in the early '80s. We got a number of busy sites marked back then. The FAA then decided to use the sailplane symbol to mark them rather than use a new symbol.

Bill Berle <auster5@earthlink.net> writes:

You can contact the NOAA, which I believe publishes the sectional charts for general aviation. Although not specifically required, you might get a designation put on the charts a little faster by doing the following (doing their work for them):

Submit an identical "package" to NOAA charts division and the FAA local FSDO office containing;

Well done aerial photo of the flight park, marked with North line and the runway headings, and ID'ing the local streets and highways

A "sample" piece of a current sectional chart marked with the designators you want to have on there. The proper designator for a non-tower grass runway is a plain red outline circle (not solid) with the name, field altitude, runway length, and CTAF or common radio frequency.

The most important part is to have them add their little hang glider icon in a couple of places around this "airport" designator… one right next to the airport and another one at the "house thermal" if there is one.

Also, mark on there in small red type "Caution: Intense Hang Gliding and Air-Towing Activity Within 3 Miles of (airport name) sfc to 5000 msl (or whatever) between 0800 and 1800 local time daily (or whatever)"

If you can follow the pattern and style that is used at other major HG or sailplane fields, and do their work for them, you should get the results much sooner than if you just called the local FAA and asked them to do something.

If you are really in the mood to save lives, you can make up a flyer that has all this information, and post it on the bulletin boards at as many nearby GA airports as possible, next to their airport restaurants, on the door to the rest room, etc. You can also combine this with marketing efforts by offering to have someone make a presentation to local EAA chapters, pilot groups, airpark association meetings, at the local FAA safety seminars, etc etc. Offer a 20 minute or an hour presentation about "hang gliding today", give out a discount coupon for a tandem ride or something, have a "fly-in day" where the local GA airplanes can fly in for a breakfast and spend the day watching the HG operations, etc.

Discuss "Put flight parks on the sectionals?" at the Oz Report forum   link»

USHGA - Does the USHGA help Idaho flyers? »

Tue, Apr 1 2003, 9:00:05 pm GMT

airspace|FAA|government|Mike Meier|space|sport|Sport Pilot|USHGA|Wallaby Ranch|Wills Wing

Mike Meier was given an award from the USHGA at the Wallaby Ranch Wills Wing Demo Days specifically for his work with the Sport Pilot initiative. This, of course, has been dragging on for years.

The major part of this achievement was working with other groups and the FAA to maintain our flight privileges. As hang glider pilots we are required to fly in uncontrolled and Class E airspace. This air space is available to us because we along with others continually struggle to keep it open to us.

Perhaps pilots in Idaho think that the air above them is theirs to enjoy. Perhaps it is, but I believe that there is a guy with a very big stick, who if he wanted to could destroy that illusion very quickly. You hate the government now? Wait till they ground you like they did in September 2001.

So how much is the USHGA through the efforts of some of its members/BOD members and through the efforts of its executive director actually helping keep the air above Idaho available to Idaho pilots? Maybe a lot.

I do know that they are making a sustained effort to make sure that we all can continue to fly unfettered by undue regulations. Do the non USHGA members want to help out the USHGA in this effort? Do they care? Do they believe that the USHGA is making an effort to help them?

Discuss "USHGA - Does the USHGA help Idaho flyers?" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Anti-war hang glider pilot lands in anti-war Vatican

Sat, Mar 29 2003, 8:00:07 am GMT

airspace|John Woiwode|video

John Woiwode <Woiwodejon@cs.com> writes:

A 26-year-old Austrian hang-glided into St. Peter's Square on Friday and tried to put up an anti-war banner before police carried him away, police said. The man landed about 6:30 a.m. (12:30 a.m. EST), when the square was virtually empty, police said.

Another seven people - five Austrian men and two German women - were also detained, police said. They were waiting nearby with cameras, video-cameras and anti-war banners, written both in Italian and German. It was not clear what charges the pilot would face for violating Vatican airspace, which is closed.

Discuss "Anti-war hang glider pilot lands in anti-war Vatican" at the Oz Report forum   link»

USHGA – Dan the marketing man »

Wed, Mar 19 2003, 9:00:10 pm GMT

advertising|airspace|branding|clubs|communication|competition|cost|FAA|gear|government|Hang Gliding|Homer Simpson|insurance|magazine|Mark Forbes|Paragliding|powered|sites|sport|students|TV|USHGA|video

Dan responds to Warren’s article (please read on conjunction with that article):

First, USHGA is not spending a single dime on this process--not even a single penny. The work is being done by staff already on the payroll, and by volunteers. That is, I am the editor of "Hang Gliding & Paragliding" magazine, but I am also the Director of Communications for USHGA, and while wearing that hat, I handle the marketing and communications programs. And before anyone gripes about excessive pay, please note that my pay rate is substantially less than that of the previous editor, even while my responsibilities are substantially higher. So USHGA is getting more work for less pay. (Okay, so I'm not a great business mind, but I do what I'm doing in the communications field).

As for the success of branding programs, I agree we need a quality product to attach to a brand, but I don't think anyone disagree that even the best products need some marketing work or they will fail. (Case in point: the old Beta-Max video tapes far exceeded VHS in quality but the VHS format had better marketing targeted toward both manufacturers and consumers, so Beta disappeared from the consumer market. That is, a lower quality product succeeded because of superior marketing).

But USHGA isn't developing a marketing plan and brand-awareness campaign to compete with anyone -- at least not directly. We are doing it to raise awareness of our lifestyle and 'sell' the sport to potential new enthusiasts. We have good products-the free flight lifestyle in general, and an association that is effectively representing its members-but we don't have good communications with our members, nor with the outside community. Our goals are to improve those communications.

We need to let our members know all the good work being done on their behalf by USHGA - working with FAA to keep airspace open to sport pilots (this is a very real, and on-going threat to our sport); working with our insurance brokers to keep members and sites insured at reasonable rates; working with land managers to get sites open, and keep them open; etc. All too many members think USHGA does nothing for them but provide insurance (I myself believed that just 18 months ago) when the truth is, we might still be hindered by drastic airspace restrictions following 9/11 if not for the aggressive efforts of the USHGA Executive Director and Board of Directors to work with the FAA and other government agencies to restore our airspace rights. Marketing is about communication and to date, our communications (internal and external) have been sadly subpar.

In short then, when we talk about branding and marketing, we are talking about increasing awareness of, and appreciation for, a solid, proven product. And we are doing it at no additional costs to the association. Not one single dime.

A big part of external marketing is advertising, and TV coverage (product placements). We don't have an advertising budget, but we can help ensure that hang gliding and paragliding gets more, and better, coverage on TV and in print media. In the last year, we've seen paragliders used in advertisements for Chevy Avalanche trucks and Saab cars.

Hang gliders appeared as part of the competition in a CBS TV reality series. During last season's "The Simpsons", hang gliding made Homer Simpson's list of "top three things to do before I die," and previously he had flown a paraglider, while bartender Moe had flown a powered paraglider (word has it, there is a hang glider pilot and a paraglider pilot on the writing staff of the show).

There have been numerous other positive references to hang gliding and paragliding in the past year or two, and while these are all minor instances in and of themselves, there is a cumulative effect on viewers-the more people see and hear about free flight, the more likely they are to want to give it a try. Toward that end, I'm working with editors from various magazines (SKI, Backcountry, Couloir, Outside, Mountain Bike, etc.) to get stories about free flight placed. Again, all without costing USHGA one-single-dime.

Warren wrote, “…marketing plan must deal with building and improving the hang gliding infrastructure or "offering." Anything else will be a complete waste of time and money.”

We couldn't agree more, and I apologize for neglecting to cover this component of our marketing and membership plans in my previous report. The ideas are still being formulated and plans developed, but the USHGA Board of Directors and teams of volunteers are working on ways to improve and enhance the instructional infrastructure of our sports.

The Board is streamlining the instructor rating programs by eliminating unnecessary red tape and bureaucratic practices-there will be no reduction in quality or oversight of the instructor rating program, but it will be managed more efficiently so would-be instructors can more easily get the training and skills they need.

We are improving the apprenticeship program, and looking into enhanced services for instructors. A great deal of attention will also be devoted to developing new and improved training facilities around the country. We will assist clubs and chapters in securing training hills and ensuring they are properly insured.

Mark Forbes also floated an idea that would help smaller schools and part-time instructors operate. The idea is to create a network of volunteers who would be willing to donate, or loan, their old, but still flyable, gliders and gear to instructors. USHGA may be nothing more than a facilitator in the process, but the idea is locate usable training gear for instructors to use at little or no cost since one of the biggest hindrances for small instructors is the availability of gear for students to train on. We'll keep you posted on this program as the plans develop.

In short, we recognize the importance of instructors in any plans to develop new enthusiasts in hang gliding and paragliding. We know that is pointless to stir a desire for free flight in people if they can't then find instructors to teach them. We are working on this just as diligently as we are working on other components of the marketing plans. And again, we are not spending one single dime on any of the plans

Discuss "USHGA – Dan the marketing man" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Sectionals on-line »

Sat, Mar 30 2002, 12:00:00 pm GMT

airspace|WRE 2002|map

Preparing for the upcoming WRE (sponsored by Flytec), I’ve looked on-line for sectionals and airport information. I wanted to get the exact coordinates for each airport with restricted airspace to the north of Zapata. I also wanted to see what type of airspace I was dealing with at each airport.

Of course, we were very familiar with Laredo, only 41 miles to the north of Zapata, with its Class D airspace, a 5 nautical mile radius around the airport center (5.75 statute miles). But, there were a few other airports to the north that we were sure to avoid over the last two years and I wanted to make sure that I knew exactly where they were.

I found a cool spot to look for free at small sections of the sectionals, and download complete sectionals for $15/each. Sure it is great to have the paper maps, and I have the paper map for Zapata and Laredo(Brownsville), but having the sectionals on your hard disk is pretty cool also. Very quick to view, scroll, zoom in, etc. They don’t come with the legends.

You can find the free parts of sectionals displayed at: http://www.aerochart.com/mapping/chart/smartchart.cfm. You can also buy the downloadable sectionals here and download immediately. You will also need to download a viewer. I suggest just using the small one (60 KB) as the bigger one doesn’t do much more and is a bit of a joke.

The e-versions of the sectionals display the co-ordinates of where ever your cursor is located, so that’s a feature you can’t get in the paper version. Also there is a GPS hook up with EasyGPS which I haven’t used yet. You can download all these auxiliary programs at no additional cost from the Smartchart web site after you download your sectional.

You can find the on-line airport directory at: http://www.aerochart.com/mapping/chart/aptsel.cfm

These sites are all part of http://www.aeroplanner.com.

Discuss "Sectionals on-line" at the Oz Report forum   link»

WRE – the corridor »

Mon, Mar 25 2002, 3:00:05 pm GMT

FAA|safety|airspace|World Record Encampment 2002

Well, Gary seems to have fallen behind on getting me material on the WRE, so I’m going to have to start reporting on what I know from conversations that I’ve had with him over the phone. The really big news is that Gary had successful discussions with the FAA in Laredo and we will be getting a corridor that will allow us to pass the airport in relative safety.

The corridor will consist of a three mile wide area to the east of the Laredo air space. We will contact the tower at Laredo and inform them of our operations for that day and they will vector aircraft away from where we will be flying.

The tower will also work with us to vector away any aircraft coming in down the I35 corridor. We have to pass through this high volume area as we head north up highway 83. Similarly they will keep military traffic out of our way in the MOA’s to the north of Laredo for the time period that we will be in the area.

The corridors are time dependent and will depend on our activity and schedule. NOTAMS will go out to all airports that send aircraft to Laredo. All carriers flying into Laredo will be notified of our activity and will be prepared to follow tower instructions to avoid the areas where we will likely be flying.

We expect to finalize these preliminary agreements with the FAA personnel shortly.

We will be organizing the WRE so as to avoid any chance of getting near controlled airspace.

Discuss "WRE – the corridor" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

Class E Airspace

Tue, Jul 24 2001, 10:00:05 pm GMT

airspace|Chris McKeage

Chris McKeage <operates@amadorwa.com> writes:

Basically class E airspace designates what clearance from clouds must be maintained by vfr aircraft and visibility minimums. If I remember correctly its 500 ft below, 1000ft horz, 2000ft above and 3 miles visibility. You do not need a clearance to fly in vfr conditions in class E space. You just need to follow the rules

Discuss "Class E Airspace" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Airspace, restricted or not »

Sun, Jul 15 2001, 6:00:04 pm EDT

Airspace|Davis Straub|USHGA|weather

Airspace|Davis Straub|John "Ole" Olson|USHGA|weather

(?-i)John "Ole" Olson|Airspace|Davis Straub|USHGA|weather

Airspace|Davis Straub|John "Ole" Olson|USHGA|weather

Dean Cully «dfcully» writes:

In report v5, #125 I noticed some confusion about US airspace and US Federal Aviation Regulations. I hope this clears it up. I don't work for the FAA but my work as a past flight instructor and current airline/charter pilot since 1988 puts me under its regulatory gaze.

Class E Airspace: In many if not most cases in the contiguous United States you are flying your hang gliders in Class E Airspace. It is not "Restricted" airspace, nor is it exclusively reserved for aircraft operating under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR). Class E airspace is indeed "contolled airspace". Yes, you are flying in controlled airspace without an ATC clearance. So long as you are maintaining Visual Flight Rules (VFR) conditions (1000' above, 500' below, 2000' horizontal and 3 miles visibility below 10,000' msl and 5 miles visibility when above 10,000' msl), you need not obtain a clearance, nor communicate with anyone. However, you are required to have a way of getting down legally (and safely) when above clouds, i.e., don't fly over a cloud deck (of course, you already know this).

The E classification of airspace typically extends from 1200' AGL to 18,000' msl, which is where Class A airspace begins, extending to approximately 60,000' (formerly known as "Positive Control Airspace"). An IFR clearance is always required to operate above 18,000' msl, regardless of weather conditions. You wouldn't want me in a LearJet or someone else in something bigger to have a 600 mph conflict with you. Class A airspace, however, is not "Restricted" airspace.

The term "Restricted" when applied to US airspace has a specific meaning. On any sectional or WAC chart you are bound to find a number of Restricted Areas. These are bordered in blue and have a corresponding "R-____" code. Flight through this type of airspace is not permitted unless permission is granted by the controlling authority, usually a branch of the military. It can also be quite hazardous, especially for a craft that may not show up well on radar. More information, such as vertical limits to the airspace and hours of operation for a particular Restricted Area can be found on a table on one of the margins of the sectional chart. "Prohibited" areas are much less common, and usually smaller (P-____), and, I hope, self-explanatory.

Class D Airspace (formerly known as an Airport Traffic Area) is the airspace surrounding an airport with an operating control tower. Class D airspace extends from the surface to 2,500' above the airport elevation. Often you will see on the chart those "keyhole" extensions of Class D (or E when more than 2 miles long) airspace on one or more sides of the Class D circle (which has a 4 mile radius). These extensions are merely showing where the base of Class E airspace (when the extension exceeds 2 miles) drops from 1,200' AGL to 700' AGL, in order to provide more protected airspace for aircraft operating into and out of the airport under IFR during IMC (Instrument Meteorological Conditions), when the weather is not so bad as to preclude operating VFR in the underlying uncontrolled airspace, also known as Class G (next paragraph).

To fly through Class D (remember, you may freely fly above it) one must (in addition to being VFR) establish two-way radio communication with the control tower, e.g., if the tower merely acknowledges your call-sign (even if followed by "standby"), you're in. However, during high traffic conditions, a controller may say something to the effect of, "aircraft calling ___ tower, standby, remain clear of Class D airspace". Of course, hang-gliders don't come with FAA registration numbers, so whether or not you have received official acknowledgement may (or may not) be a legal fine point. Towered airports are depicted on the sectional chart in blue, non-towered in magenta.

Class G Airspace typically extends from the surface to the base of Class E (or up to 18,000' in some places, increasingly hard to find in the lower 48) and only requires a VFR pilot to maintain 1 mile of visibility and to remain "clear of clouds". In other words, those extensions are to separate "scud-runners" (those operating in "Marginal VFR") from pilots letting down on instrument approach procedures, which may include use of an ILS (an electronic glide lope and course guidance system) or a variety of other less precise procedures.

In the case of PDX (Portland, Oregon) one would be flying through not only Class D but Class C airspace as well. Class C, like D also requires only simple acknowledgement of your call-sign by ATC, but covers a much larger area and extends to 4,000' above the airport elevation.

Class B Airspace is that which currently surrounds twelve of the busiest US airports such as LAX, SFO, JFK, ORD, etc. and extends to 10,000' msl. I won't go into detail on this, other than to say, stay out and don't bother trying to get a clearance with a hang glider (needless to say, I suppose); The controllers will be too busy to laugh at you.

There is no Class F airspace in the US... unless one were to classify all Hang-Glidable airspace as "F" for "Fun".

I won't go into any further detail unless someone wants me to, and this should be enough to get by with. The FAA's Aeronautical Information Manual/AIM (formerly known as the Airman's Information Manual) starting with page 3-2-1 explains all this and more in plain English (unlike the legalistic FAR's).

213 miles in a flex wing

Mon, May 22 2000, 9:30:00 am GMT

airspace|Arlan Birkett|Bright Star Millennium|cloud|competition|dust devil|Greg Dinauer|Hang Glide Chicago|Jim Lamb|Larry Bunner|Pete Lehmann|record|tow|tug|XC

Larry Bunner, «LBunner», writes:

I really enjoy reading about the long flights in Florida, but I’ve got to tell you that a part of me was in turmoil when Mark P. and then Davis reset the East Coast Distance record this spring. Way back in 1988, I was fortunate to fly my Sensor B model in epic XC conditions 176 miles in 5 ½ hours. This record stood for 10 years before Pete Lehmann broke it in 1998 with a 182-mile flight.

At the beginning of each year since ‘88, I have set my goal to be the first to fly over 200 miles east of the Mississippi River. Little did I think it would take someone over a decade to accomplish this and you can understand my disappointment when it wasn’t me.

Complicating matters this year, a new position with my company has significantly reduced the opportunities to fly. I have now become a weekend pilot and have to choose which of the two days looks best, as family commitments are a priority also. As a result, my airtime is way down (~12 hours) and with the Midwest XC Championships scheduled for Memorial Day weekend, I elected to take vacation the week before to prepare for the competition.

I do most of my flying now at the Hang Glide Chicago aero park in Leland, Illinois. Arlan Birkett has one Kolb tug and another under construction. The site is located about 50 miles southwest of Chicago and is situated ideally for XC flying in the Midwest.

The only obstructions to long distances to the south and east are the controlled air space over Champaign, IL, Lafayette and Indianapolis, IN. There are no mountains to cross nor forests to fly over just flat ground as far as the eye can see. Many flights over 100 miles have started in this area and it was only 20 miles from here that my XC flight began so long ago.

On Wednesday May 24th, I went through my preflight ritual; checked the grass for dew on the way to get the paper, got on the Internet to check the soaring forecast and called Flight Service for the Chicago area soaring forecast. All indicators looked good, the grass was dry and the forecasts predicted excellent lift and strong winds. Winds at the top of the lift were predicted to be ~40 mph (how’s that for push!).

Editor's note: Jim Lamb reports:

"Winds were WSW from 20 on the ground to 38 Knots at 8,000 (not much rotation at upper levels) and increasing during the day. Height of the -3 was above 9,000' in many areas."

In my logbook last year I had noted several times to get to the park earlier. Often the cu’s would be forming well before noon and I would still be on the road. The night before, my better half sensed a flying day was on the horizon and put together a list of things to do around the house. Being short sighted, I finished them that night not realizing that after I went to bed she developed a new list. When I got up in the morning, I still had work to do! Enough excuses, I didn’t get to Leland until after 10:30 and wasn’t on the flight line ready to tow until 11:50. Needless to say those cu’s were forming again around 11:00 (Davis could teach me a few things on maximizing the front end of the day).

The winds at launch were blowing from the NW at 10-20 mph as we took off. The tug did not climb very well as we were almost 2 miles upwind before releasing at 1400’. I flew upwind in my Stealth 151 KPL to get some more maneuvering room before I had to decide to leave the park area. A ratty thermal took me to 2500’ and quickly back to the airport. I left this in favor of a developing cu to the southwest of the field and was soon in scramble mode down to 600’ under the cloud shadow. I was going to find this thermal or go down trying.

Luckily enough (and very lucky it was as you will soon find out) I caught a smooth core at 300 fpm that turned into 600 fpm by the time I topped out over 6000’ almost 20 miles away near Morris, IL.

Back at launch, Greg Dinauer towed his Millennium to 2000’ and released in good lift to head on his way. Unfortunately, on the ground Warren Seipman was last to tow and by the time the tug landed, the winds had picked up considerably, gusting over 30 mph. Arlan could not get the tug to taxi downwind without lifting a wing and Warren was having trouble in the dolly. Arlan called it a day. Man, am I glad I went for the cloud.

Greg and I were using business band channel 2 however I could not transmit. I heard him fine for about an hour and then my batteries went dead. I changed to both spares and they were dead too. I guess that after 6 years they had exceeded their lifetime. I fly best when alone anyway so it was no big loss for me; actually one less distraction to worry about.

Small cumuli were forming in streets to the north and east. I was in a good line but there were no clouds to the south. The next few thermals took me to 7500’ still well below cloudbase but the lift seemed to peter out so I headed downwind crossing interstate 55 and then 57. I set up my Tangent ‘next climb’ to 650 fpm and tailwind at 24 mph and began using the speed to fly in earnest.

The next two thermals took me to ~8500’ (later we estimated cloudbase to be well over 9000’) in the strongest lift (>1400 fpm) I have encountered in the Midwest. The subsequent glides took me into Indiana over highway 41 and interstate 65. The going had been fairly easy to this point, I stayed above 5000’ with no trouble.

I wanted to check my distance so far and was very surprised to see that I was at the 100-mile mark and it was only 2:30! If I could just stay in the air, there was enough push that the site record of 144 miles and Region 7 and state record of 177 miles would soon fall.

As often happens though the conditions began to deteriorate. High cirrus from some distant storm to the west was moving in my direction faster than I was able to fly. I could see the shadows coming from a long way off and I had to pick a line to keep me in the sunshine. The lift was still good (~600 fpm), however the cu’s began to dissipate and soon the glides between lift sources became much more extended.

I was now getting down to 4000’ before finding lift but was still getting over 7000’. My philosophy has always been that he who stays in the air the longest usually goes the farthest so at this point I changed gears a bit and set my ‘next climb’ back to 350 fpm and tailwind at 18 mph to be a little more conservative.

At 4:00, I reluctantly grabbed my cell phone with a death grip and dialed Hang Glide Chicago to report my status as I was beginning to worry about the long retrieve. I couldn’t hear anyone on the other end because of the wind noise but reported that I was over 6000’ at the 164 mile mark. Arlan heard me; he and Warren headed out to Indiana.

Greg meanwhile had hit the same high cloud cover and glided into a big blue hole landing near Fort Wayne, Indiana for a 177 mile flight breaking the long standing Region 7 record. I entered the same blue hole and descended below 4000’ for the first time.

Long in the distance I could see a good line of cu’s and thought if I could only get to them, Ohio would certainly be within reach. I had several good climbs back above 6000’ and was still gliding well. I had visions of entering Ohio and breaking off a really long flight, when I found myself below 3000’ and then 2000’. The cu’s were just ahead of me as I scratched and clawed to stay airborne.

From 1500’ I latched onto a small patch of lift that pushed me eastward and slowly upward to 2200’. Searching and gliding, I bubbled along for a ½ hour before finally succumbing to the forces of gravity and landed north of Bryant, Indiana just 8 miles short of the Ohio border. Total distance was 213 miles in a little under 5 ½ hours. Whooeee!!! I am back in the saddle again!

As I walked the glider out of the field, a small cu formed above my head. A line of three nicely shaped cu’s pointed the way into Ohio. You do the math and figure what could have been.

I’ve had two days to critique the flight and although I flew fairly well, I did make several errors, which cost me miles. The most glaring was the start time. I kick myself again for not getting in the air by 11:00. I should have set the tailwind in the Tangent to 35 mph for the better part of the day.

In one thermal, I left good lift at 7500’ to fly upwind to a better looking cloud (what a waste of time. Duh!) only to get about what I left. The next was leaving 400 fpm at 7000’ to fly south to a dust devil ripping across the field. I lost 1000’ and never did hit lift. In retrospect I was probably in the lift from the dust devil as it snaked up to where I had been climbing.

All in all it was one awesome day. It certainly shows the incredible potential we have here in the flatlands. I only hope that I don’t have to wait another 12 years to better it again.