Radio advice - newbie

Mark James Boyd wrote:

I suspect gliding is much
more popular because petrol is so expensive and in some
countries one must get a scheduled "slot" to fly a plane.

I am deeply shocked to read this statement on r.a.s.! Soaring is popular
here because it's a challenge and it's fun, while flying straight and
level with the help of a fuel to noise converter is just plain boring.

Don't the flight levels start at 6000 in some places too?
Do you need radios for this?

You're confusing flight levels with controlled airspace. Maybe it's the
same in USA, but not here.

Perhaps someone could tell us what radio requirements

All our glider have radio. Not because it's required, but because it's
a) convenient
b) safe (on tow as well as on approach)
c) allows team flying
d) is required for cloud flying

That it allows to enter controlled airspace is a nice side effect.

Stefan

Soaring in the US is a bit different (more basic?) than in Europe. A
lot of gliding is done at commercial operations, which usually do not
bother to install radios (expense, battery maintenance, etc). Since
this kind of flying is "show up, fly for an hour, go home", there is
little sense of "ownership" in the gliders (which are often basic
gliders like 2-33s or 1-26s, or various Blaniks) so they are not taken
care of very well. There are exceptions, of course, usually where
higher performance gliders are available. As far as US clubs, they
also tend to be a lot more basic than European ones (sorry, I don't
have any experience with SA/Oz/NZ so won't comment on them), so while
radios are more common they are not universal. Private ships,
however, are almost all equipped with radios - required for contests,
anyway.

When I fly commercial rides at the local glider operation, I carry a
handheld, for all the obvious reasons mentioned by others, since only
two of the 10 gliders available for rent or rides has a working radio
- both single seaters. My own glider has a radio installed, as do all
those of my gliding friends.

Performance with a handheld is actually pretty good, especially from a
glass ship. In a metal trainer, it helps to have an outside antenna.
It always helps to hook up to a nice big battery. Then add a headset
and push to talk velcroed to the stick - more wires than an astronaut!
But better than no radio.

We don't cloud fly much here (I know of only one pilot who does - in
Florida), and controlled airspace is not really a problem - yet - so a
pilot can get by for a long time never having to talk on the radio;
and a lot do exactly that! I've even heard some express their opinion
that they don't have a radio because they think a radio is unsafe in a
glider - too distracting. As a result of lack of formal training in
their correct use, radios are not used very well - way too much
chatter and poor radio calls when needed (in the pattern, for
example). Of course, this is not only a glider problem - if anything
power pilots are worse!

Oddly, most US pilots do not feel the need for a radio when
aerotowing, but think it is necessary when winch launching - just the
opposite of my experience.

Cheers,

Kirk
66

Stefan wrote:
Mark James Boyd wrote:

I suspect gliding is much
more popular because petrol is so expensive and in some
countries one must get a scheduled "slot" to fly a plane.

I am deeply shocked to read this statement on r.a.s.! Soaring is popular
here because it's a challenge and it's fun, while flying straight and
level with the help of a fuel to noise converter is just plain boring.


Being cheaper and less hassle has nothing to do with it? C'mon...

I think here in the US lack of "hassle factor" is a big motivation.
Here, we've seen the ultralight and hang gliding community
boom while the glider population is decreasing. Some people
(including me and Dennis Wright, our SSA chief) think this is
because ultralights and hang gliders have practically a "0"
hassle factor (no checkride, no signoffs, no minimum distance
flown from people, no tail numbers, no radio skill, etc.).

http://www.nickselby.com/articles/av...flyeurope.html
seems to indicate petrol and rentals and taxes and
landing fees and in some cases (Germany) scheduled slots
are required for power pilots. I would expect that some
potential power pilots are glider pilots in Germany because of less
expense and hassle. A winch launch and then a free landing in
an open field sounds better than lots of $$$$ and scheduling.

Don't the flight levels start at 6000 in some places too?
Do you need radios for this?

You're confusing flight levels with controlled airspace. Maybe it's the
same in USA, but not here.

You are correct that I was mixing terminology. I should have
simply asked "is there some altitude above which radios are
required overseas?" and said "in the US, radios are only legally
required above FL180 (about 18,000 feet), and also
near busy airports (which are
sparse in many parts of soaring country)."

I think the definition of "controlled airspace" is best avoided,
since in the US it doesn't directly concern radios ("E" airspace,
for example).


Perhaps someone could tell us what radio requirements

All our glider have radio. Not because it's required, but because it's
a) convenient
b) safe (on tow as well as on approach)
c) allows team flying
d) is required for cloud flying

That it allows to enter controlled airspace is a nice side effect.


AHA! One huge difference is that cloud flying is more
common in some places internationally. It is quite uncommon
here in the US.

Because of safety and convenience and team flying, as well as
crew coordination and retrieves, I'd agree with the previous
post that 95% of private and X-country capable gliders have
radios installed.

I think the main reason they aren't in many low-performance
training gliders in the US is to keep them cheap, cheap, cheap.
If it's not REQUIRED, it's an avoidable expense...

Mark James Boyd wrote:

Being cheaper and less hassle has nothing to do with it? C'mon...
....
I would expect that some
potential power pilots are glider pilots in Germany because of less
expense and hassle. A winch launch and then a free landing in
an open field sounds better than lots of $$$$ and scheduling.

Actually, it's the other way round. Gliding is *much* more hassle than
flying noisemakers. Nevertheless, many pilots in our club have had a
power license, too. Most of them let it expire and fly gliders only,
despite the hassle. It's simply more fun.

You're correct in one point: Power flying is expensive in Europe, and
soaring is cheaper. But then, we don't want to occupy foreign countries
to secure a cheap oil supply, and Kyoto means something to us.

You are correct that I was mixing terminology. I should have
simply asked "is there some altitude above which radios are
required overseas?"

Depends on the country. In my region, ist's 10'000 ft AMSL over flat
land and 15'000 ft AMSL or 2000 ft AGL (whichever is higher) over the
mountains. This is enough except if you want to enter wave, which
doesn't happen too often.

I think the definition of "controlled airspace" is best avoided,
since in the US it doesn't directly concern radios ("E" airspace,
for example).

Got me!

Stefan

Mark James Boyd wrote:

I think here in the US lack of "hassle factor" is a big motivation.
Here, we've seen the ultralight and hang gliding community
boom while the glider population is decreasing. Some people
(including me and Dennis Wright, our SSA chief) think this is
because ultralights and hang gliders have practically a "0"
hassle factor (no checkride, no signoffs, no minimum distance
flown from people, no tail numbers, no radio skill, etc.).

It's an enduring myth among sailplane pilots that hang gliding has a low
hassle factor. I've talked to a number of former hang glider pilots who
are now sailplane pilots, and they say it is often the reverse. The
reasons will vary from place to place, but here are few from the last
one I talked to:

-get to hang glider site: no wind, no fly.
-ruin a car/truck every four years driving over logging roads to site
-every cross country flight is a retrieve
-glider depreciates quickly
-leave home early, get home after dinner, wife grumpy
-very tiring to fly

Now he's flying a Ka-6:
-leave home after lunch, home by dinner, wife ecstatic
-easy drive to airport on paved roads; car still good
-hugely better performance
-long cross-country flights end back at airport
-glider worth more now than when he bought it
-relaxing to fly

So, plenty of hassles, but different ones.

And, unfortunately, the hang gliding community, at least in the US, is
not growing either.
--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Eric Greenwell wrote:

It's an enduring myth among sailplane pilots that hang gliding has a low
hassle factor. I've talked to a number of former hang glider pilots who
are now sailplane pilots, and they say it is often the reverse. The
reasons will vary from place to place, but here are few from the last
one I talked to:

-get to hang glider site: no wind, no fly.
-ruin a car/truck every four years driving over logging roads to site
-every cross country flight is a retrieve
-glider depreciates quickly
-leave home early, get home after dinner, wife grumpy
-very tiring to fly


One of my three partners in a plane got started flying in a hang
glider when he was 15. He bought it for $50. He'd haul it
up a hill and fly down a few feet off the ground. One day
his buddies egged him into taking it up a big hill with
wind going up it. He took a few steps, and bingo, he was up
for about a minute, and landed next to his
house. He took it up a big hang gliding hill one time
and the locals said "where's your battens?" He said
"what are those?" so they laughed him off the hill...

The same guy recently got me up in his ultralight. Incredible
view, super low stall speed, VERY few restrictions in part
103. We flew right over the beach and waved at people.
The engine was started with a tug of a rope.
To be legal to carry passengers, one must become
an ultralight "basic flight instructor," which
involves no $90 written test and no $350 FAA flight test.
The "test" is given by someone who is already a BFI, and
has also been doing it more than 6 months and also has a
8-hour seminar.

As I get older, the flight reviews, medicals, six approaches,
3 landings at night in a multi-engine taildragger, etc. seem
more and more of a hassle. As I glance at the glider PTS and notice
dozens of references including thousands of pages of detail,
it occurs to me that being able to explain the "mixing ratio"
may be required by my examiner, but certainly falls into
the category that I would consider "obscure." In essence
it is intimidating, even though it will be my 11th FAA
checkride.

I researched heavily to find two aero clubs in California with
a very low "hassle factor" and minimum expense. But flying
gliders and even very simple power planes is still more daunting
in terms of sheer mass of requirements than that little
Quicksilver Sprint MXII. And I have made great efforts to
recruit friends to soaring, with little success mostly due
to the "intimidation factor" of the ferocious checkride.

I was truly heartened to see Dennis Wright's column where
he echoed these same concerns (December "Soaring"). This is
why I hope Sport Pilot goes through. I'd like to see
something that makes piloting more available to the
folks who want to have fun.

(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:3fd82ec7$1@darkstar...

The same guy recently got me up in his ultralight. Incredible
view, super low stall speed, VERY few restrictions in part
103. We flew right over the beach and waved at people.
The engine was started with a tug of a rope.
To be legal to carry passengers, one must become
an ultralight "basic flight instructor," which
involves no $90 written test and no $350 FAA flight test.
The "test" is given by someone who is already a BFI, and
has also been doing it more than 6 months and also has a
8-hour seminar.

As I get older, the flight reviews, medicals, six approaches,
3 landings at night in a multi-engine taildragger, etc. seem
more and more of a hassle. As I glance at the glider PTS and notice
dozens of references including thousands of pages of detail,
it occurs to me that being able to explain the "mixing ratio"
may be required by my examiner, but certainly falls into
the category that I would consider "obscure." In essence
it is intimidating, even though it will be my 11th FAA
checkride.

Mark, your attitude scares me a bit. Sorry, but flying should be a
bit intimidating - it's just not safe otherwise. There is usually a
pretty damn good reason (read - people got killed) for most of the
requirements, if you look at them carefully enough.

The whole ultralight scene totally scares me. Not that the majority
of ultralight pilots don't fly relatively safely, but the attitude
that "I can just jump into it and fly around, just like an ATV with
wings" leads to some really scary flying - and some sad, stupid,
unnecessary deaths, like we just had out at our glider field a few
weeks ago.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of useless regulation - what I
believe is needed (in all flying activities) is a lot of good training
and knowledge about what can kill you. Thats what all the check rides
are about - and without them anyone is just playing russian roulette
with wings.

Hassle factor? Name one really worthwhile activity that doesn't
require lots of time, dedication, money, sweat, studying, etc. That's
what makes it worthwhile! Who do you think gets more out of a glider
flight, the guy who shows up at 9 am, rigs his ship, washes every bit
of it (even a 1-26!), takes the lowest tow possible, flies regardless
of the conditions (as long as it's safe) as long as he can, then puts
his ship away and hangs around BS-ing with the locals watching the sun
set - or the guy who only comes out to the field on a perfect day,
reserves a plane from a commercial operator, takes a high tow, flies
exactly 1.0 locally, lands, pays his bill, then leaves? When flight
currency requirements start becoming hard to maintain, it's a good
sign to stop pretending to be current in that activity and stick to
something simpler. Think about it - a lot of times the instructor
giving the checkride has less time and experience than the pilot
getting the check - so teach him a thing or two!

Bah Humbug (It's that season again - havn't flown in a couple of
weeks)

Kirk
66

Kirk Stant wrote:

Mark, your attitude scares me a bit. Sorry, but flying should be a
bit intimidating -

Nowhere in my post did I say hang gliding or ultralight
flying, especially given the current rules, was safe. I simply
don't have enough time doing either to evaluate that. My
comments only referred to barriers to entry to the sport,
i.e. "hassle factor." If you think there was any claim
in that post that evaluated the safety or fatality rate in
either sport, please reread the post.

The whole ultralight scene totally scares me. Not that the majority
of ultralight pilots don't fly relatively safely, but the attitude
that "I can just jump into it and fly around, just like an ATV with
wings" leads to some really scary flying - and some sad, stupid,
unnecessary deaths, like we just had out at our glider field a few
weeks ago.

Can you tell me of any aviation accident with a pilot of
any training level that wasn't "sad, stupid, and unecessary" ?

As far as your particular affinity for ultralights goes, I hear
ya. I must say I spent sevral days and a lot of kicking dust
before flying it. I approached it just like any new aircraft:
read the manual, read the common accidents, inspect the craft
(castle nuts without cotter keys, is this wire supposed to be unloaded?,
what about negative G's? Stall speed? Crosswinds? Turbulence?
C.G.? This CG business was a real biggie).
Then find an A&P and BFI with umpteen accident free hours (any
idiot can have hours, how many are accident free?).
There were several other things that made me SUPER scared (no
shoulder harnesses or parachutes), and
some mistakes (open cockpit means hats get blown about and double
goggles are a good idea, good thing I wasn't the pilot). There
was also one amazing confidence builder (ballistic parachute).
If you haven't read about saves made by these things, I highly
recommend it. I don't think I'll become an avid ultralight
pilot, but it was an AMAZING eye opener and I'd highly recommend
one flight with someone you've evaluated to your level of
comfort. A wing that stalls at 18 mph is an amazing thing.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of useless regulation - what I
believe is needed (in all flying activities) is a lot of good training
and knowledge about what can kill you. Thats what all the check rides
are about - and without them anyone is just playing russian roulette
with wings.


I'm convinced the most interesting training absolutely does not
improve safety, but only maintains the same level of safety
while improving capability. Student pilots solo because they
are safe, then train to fly further, higher, and with passengers,
and in more interesting wind and weather (increasing capability).

I believe the FAA should divide a LOT of PTS stuff out as
endorsements. I believe all of these things should be
endorsements, and NOT part of the PTS for any
Sport Pilot license:

1. Radio use
2. Night flying
3. Instrument training
4. Airspace flying (D, C, B, A)
5. Cross-country flying
6. Flight at altitude over 12,500
7. Assembly/disassembly of aircraft (I mean beyond preflight)

I think the FAA has, over time, divided out a lot of stuff
as endorsements, and I think this is great. Launches,
high-perf, complex, tailwheel, pressurization, IPC,
solo in new cat/class, etc. I'm really excited about this
trend. When I talk about "hassle factor" I'm really
saying that it's a shame that a newbie pilot can't take
a passenger up in a 2-33 without a checkride covering 1-7.

Hassle factor? Name one really worthwhile activity that doesn't
require lots of time, dedication, money, sweat, studying, etc.

Sex. Think about it...

That's what makes it worthwhile! Who do you think gets more outa glider
flight, the guy who shows up at 9 am, rigs his ship, washes every bit
of it (even a 1-26!), takes the lowest tow possible, flies regardless
of the conditions (as long as it's safe) as long as he can, then puts
his ship away and hangs around BS-ing with the locals watching the sun
set - or the guy who only comes out to the field on a perfect day,
reserves a plane from a commercial operator, takes a high tow, flies
exactly 1.0 locally, lands, pays his bill, then leaves?

I think the pilot should chose how much he wants to get out of
flying, and if his flying simply doesn't involve 1-7, requiring
it is a burden. I know one pilot who has a Waco and a Citabria.
He was burdened by the 1-7, and the high-performance endorsement
was off the mark (he needed it to fly a 210 hp with fixed prop).

This guy flies day VFR in G and E airspace locally, and never
sees 5000 feet. He just loves going up at every chance
and making donuts in the sky.

Who gets more out of gliding is not mine to determine. If
someone likes a 1-26 because it can be left in the rain and
not disassembled (and doesn't even know how) then jolly for him.
If someone else wants to put lights on his glider,
fly in clouds at 22,000 feet, and go 500km+, hey, that's
cool too...

When flight
currency requirements start becoming hard to maintain, it's a good
sign to stop pretending to be current in that activity and stick to
something simpler.

I couldn't agree more. I've largely given up trying to
maintain my multi-engine currency, and my IFR is rusty enough
that my personal minimums are way up (I won't do an ILS to mins).
Trying to keep all those currencies has just been too
much of a hassle...

Think about it - a lot of times the instructor
giving the checkride has less time and experience than the pilot
getting the check - so teach him a thing or two!


Good idea, I hope so.

Bah Humbug (It's that season again - havn't flown in a couple of
weeks)

Merry Chrismas! I think for Christmas I might be getting
a tiny baby girl. What's in your stocking? :-P


Kirk
66

Mark
35 (but I always tell the ladies I'm 21)


"rec.aviation.soaring - BS free since Dec 11, 2003 at 10:55 PST"

(Mark James Boyd) wrote in news:3fd8bce1$1@darkstar:

Kirk Stant wrote:

clip

The whole ultralight scene totally scares me. Not that the majority
of ultralight pilots don't fly relatively safely, but the attitude
that "I can just jump into it and fly around, just like an ATV with
wings" leads to some really scary flying - ... more clip

C.G.? This CG business was a real biggie).

I only tried the ultralight thing twice... 1st time I climbed in with the
apparently competent instructor and was flying around having a blast until
he cut the power back to idle and I had to push the stick all the way
forward and add power to avoid a stall. I hate to think what would have
happened if we had lost power. 2nd time I went to another operation. The
resident instructor was walking around with a bad limp. I didn't ask, but
he volunteered that he had crashed a cherokee a few months before... and he
had no license, no insurance, was taking off with about a 500 ft ceiling,
carb iced up. He also told me he didn't report it to the FAA. I didn't
fly there - found the glider operation instead and got my glider rating.


--
Roger Kelly
to reply replace the IP address above with cgisenior.com

Hi Mark,

I realized after hitting the "Post Message" button that my previous
post came across as a bit (understatement!) arrogant and
condescending. Sorry, it wasn't meant to be, I was reacting to the
ultralight accident I mentioned, which has really colored my opinion
about the whole "Flying is too complicated and hard, let's make it
easier" trend.

From your response it's obvious we actually think alike in many ways
when it comes to flying - except for the Sports Pilot thing. If 14
year olds can solo gliders and be licenced by 16, having mastered all
the technicalities and "hassles", then it really isn't that hard - it
just takes determination and time (and money, of course - preferably
someone else's!). Making it "easier" by crippling the performance of
the planes and limiting the pilots freedom sounds like a bad and
dangerous deal to me - and everything I have seen in the ultralight
world confirms this - there is so much blatant disrespect for the
limits going on, only the fact that when they kill themselves it is
usually out in the middle of nowhere keeps the Feds from jumping in.

The sad thing is that I love to fly real (meaning certificated) planes
in the same performance range as the ultralights (J-3s and Champs
comes to mind); and I have, but no-one makes any new ones because they
can't compete with ultralights, so we are stuck with 50-year old
designs or expensive antiques or homebuilts - and there goes the
availability and affordability!

I guess I just don't subscribe to the belief that "flying is for
everybody" - heck, there are a lot of people out there who shouldn't
even be driving a car!

Of course, I guess that whatever happens, Darwin and gravity will sort
it all out in the long run. It usually does. I just don't want to be
in the same piece of sky when it happens.

Cheers

Kirk
66
Snobby Elitist Glasshole
and PEZ addict